Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutTR-10/18/2006 James F. King, President Jill M. Doherty, Vice-President Peggy A. Dickerson Dave Bergen Town Hall 53095 Route 25 P.O. Box 111'9 Southold, New York 11971-0959 Telephone (6311 765-1892 Fax (6311 765-6641 BOARD OF TOWN TRUSTEES TOWN OF SOUTHOLD RECEIVi::O .t rf4a.. 1!,'I5Il,u ~~nY2 'Jj. ~--~ -~&f..(':..r~ ~ MINUTES Souil,uld Tc,v.n Clerk wednesday, october 18, 2006 6: 30 PM Present were: James King, President Jill Doherty, vice-president peggy Dickerson, Trustee Dave Bergen, Trustee E. Brownell Johnston, Esq. Assistant Town Attorney for Trustees Lauren Standish, Secretarial Assistant CALL MEETING TO ORDER PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE NEXT FIELD INSPECTION: Friday, November 10, 2006 at 8:00 AM NEXT TRUSTEE MEETING: wednesday, November 15, 2006 at 6:30 PM WORK SESSION: 5:30 PM APPROVE MINUTES: Approve Minutes of August 15, 2006 (Moorings) TRUSTEE KING: Good evening, everyone. welcome to our October meeting. My name is Jim King. I happen to be the lucky one to be president of this club. I would like to introduce the rest of the board; Dave Bergen to my far left; Peg Dickerson; next we have Jill Doherty, she is the vice-president. (UNIDENTIFIED VOICE): A little louder please. TRUSTEE KING: Can you hear me now? (UNIDENTIFIED VOICE): Yes. TRUSTEE KING: vice-president Jill Doherty; myself; Lauren Standish, she's the office manager; usually in this seat is John Holzapfel. I'll give you a little background on that. John was a Town Trustee when I first got on the page 1 OCTMIN-Final D 2 board eleven years ago. Last year Al Krupski was elected to the Town Board. That left a vacancy on our board. what the Town Board did is appointed John Holzapfel to fill that slot for the remainder of the year. I might add it was a very wise choice for the Town Board. John did a fantastic job, he was a great trustee. He was a science teacher, very knowledgable in the marine district, what goes on, and he had a lot of common sense. He was a real asset to us. He resigned as of october 7. Because we have a new election coming up, we will have a new trustee elected to fill out the remaining year term. whoever gets elected will have a tough act to follow, I can tell you that. But we really appreciated John's service and he did a great job. I wish he could be here so I could thank him more, but we'll be talking to him later. Thank you. Next, Brownell Johnston. Brownell is our legal advisor. He takes care of the some of the legal issues we have. We seem to be getting a lot more of those issues as time goes on and things get more complicated. sometimes there is a member from the CAC, which is the Conservation Advisory council. They go out on site inspections, just as we do, and give us a report on what they see and what they recommend. John wilder is the member that should be here tonight. I don't know if he's going to be here or if he's just late. This board has been very active in the last few years. We rewrote chapter 97, which is the Wetland code. It's now chapter 275. we'll be looking at that to be making more revisions to it and keep it updated. I don't know if you call it a living document. we just about completed a Mooring code. It's going to be submitted to Town Board. It was submitted once, came back to us to try to look at it and do some more work on it. The shellfish code is being revised. we have some road runoff projects in the works. So I think we are doing a pretty good job. Not to toot our own horn, but we are working at it. with that being said, I would like to start the meeting. MR. JOHNSTON: By the way, we have somebody keeping us honest here. TRUSTEE KING: Yes, yes. we had a recorder, Florence D 3 wiles, she used to be here doing the same job wayne is doing. she took a position as a teacher. she is no page 2 OCTMIN-Final longer ~oing to be doing our recording. Th1S is Wayne Galante. He's going to be our recorder now, keeps track of everything everybody says, including me, unfortunately. Thank you. TRUSTEE BERGEN: If I may add a comment also. At the last Town Board meeting, anybody who watches the Town Board meetings on TV or goes to Town Board meetings, there was a member of the audience that got up and told the Town Board she had gotten a feeling from discussions with the trustees that the trustees had made a decision already on whether or not to appeal a legal decision, that being the Beth Manzanobile case. I just want to go on public record that that person had not talked to any of the trustees. So she had made this statement without talking to the trustees, and I just want to clarify that in public record. okay? Thank you. TRUSTEE KING: DO you want to set the date for the next field inspection or change it? TRUSTEE DICKERSON: Yes, I think everybody agreed to November 10; Friday the 10th. TRUSTEE KING: Motion? TRUSTEE DICKERSON: So moved. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Second. TRUSTEE KING: All in favor? ALL AYES. The next regular meetin~ will be wednesday, November 15 at 6:30. work session 1S at 5:30. TRUSTEE DICKERSON: Motion to approve. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Second. TRUSTEE KING: All in favor? ALL AYES. I have not seen the minutes of August. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: That's for the board meetin~. TRUSTEE BERGEN: Our regular meeting also. I 11 follow-up with her. I. MONTHLY REPORT: The Trustees monthly report for september, 2006. A check for $8,476.79 was Forwarded to the supervisor's office for the General Fund. II. PUBLIC NOTICES: public notices are posted on the Town Clerk's bulletin board for review. o 4 III. STATE ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY REVIEWS: vincent & Eileen Flaherty - SCTM#92-1-8 Monte & carolyn Redman - SCTM#128-4-21 Robert & Susan somerville - SCTM#90-4-7 Andrew weiner - SCTM#90-4-7 Eve Macsweeney - SCTM#50-2-13 Stepan Minakyan - SCTM#94-1-21 page 3 OCTMIN-Final Mary VanCott - SCTM#111-14-23 Michael & Beth Neumann - SCTM#107-1-12 Linda Sanford - SCTM#81-3-27.1 Karnick & Haci Garipian - SCTM#44-1-1 Nancy R. ROSS and Others - SCTM#123-8-22.2 Eugene & MaryAnn Krupski - SCTM#100-2-3 Carol witschieben & Janet witschieben Larsen - SCTM#99-1-5 Joann walker - SCTM#66-1-33 warren & Susan Cannon - SCTM#112-1-14 Don & Mary Jo Murphy - SCTM#119-1-9.1 Doug Dey - SCTM#81-3-24 Mary zupa - SCTM#81-1-16.7 IV. RESOLUTIONS-ADMINISTRATIVE PERMITS: TRUSTEE KING: First we have Resolutions and Administrative Permits. DO we waive these or do we want them to go in one by one? TRUSTEE DOHERTY: we can do one, two, four and five. One two and fou r. TRUSTEE KING: what we try and do is move these things along if we can. we used to be here until one o'clock in the morning. We are trying to get out a little better, more timely schedule. I ask the people if you have comments during public hearings, if you have comments to make, try and keep them concise and limit them to five minutes. we've had people go on and on sometimes and it's really unnecessary. If you have a long letter, we can accept the letter. It will be put into the record. YOU can summarize it, but please, don't read five, ten-page letters because a lot of people are here, they want to get their business taken care of, they are out here, so. we'll try and do it that way. so we can do one -- MR. JOHNSTON: Jim, a second. DO you want to highlight the postponed ones? TRUSTEE KING: Yes, sorry. Thank you, for reminding me. o 5 we had some postponements and I don't want anybody sitting through here waiting for something to come up that we are going to postpone. Number one under Wetland permits, Arthur R. Torell is postponed. Number six, Nancy ROSS and others, that has been postponed. Number Eight, Grace Burr Hawkins on Fishers Island has been postponed. Number 13, George Guimaraes, that's another Fishers Island, has been postponed. Number 14, Eve MacSweeney, has been postponed. Page 4 OCTMIN-Final MR. JOHNSTON: There is another Macsweeney. TRUSTEE KING: This is number 14. Number 15, vincent P. Basilice, has been postponed. TRUSTEE BERGEN: Number five under coastal Erosion and wetland permits. susan S. Rentchler, on Fishers Island, has been postponed. TRUSTEE DICKERSON: TOp of page four. TRUSTEE KING: Number five on page four. Susan Rentchler is also postponed. MR. JOHNSTON: Was number two coastal Erosions Wetland permit, was that postponed, was just the one of the two? TRUSTEE KING: I think so. MR. JOHNSTON: okay. TRUSTEE KING: The one -- MR. JOHNSTON: Because there is two. TRUSTEE KING: I believe one is for a stairway and one is for replanting. TRUSTEE BERGEN: Yes. TRUSTEE KING: So on the resolution of administrative permits, we'll do one, two and four. we had no problems and I'll make a motion to approve those. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Second. TRUSTEE KING: All in favor? ALL AYES. Number three, this was a little unusual. I looked at this one. what these people are doing -- this was first advertised as a public hearing. If there is anybody here to speak about this one, with Monte and carolyn Redman, peconic Bay Boulevard, if there is anyone wants to speak to this, because it was advertised as a public hearing, you are more than welcome to comment on it. when I went to look at it, what it was was a simple reduction on the size of an existing deck and replacing, D 6 rebuilding the side deck to the house. very, very minor. And it should have been in as an administrative permit, which is a lesser fee. we developed the administrative permit so that people who want to do something minor on their home, a simple thing like putting a window in or adding a small deck, it really doesn't warrant notifying your neighbors, having a public hearing and make somebody go through the whole process. So this qualifies for that. That's why we put it on as an administrative permit. It's really down sizing. The original application as a wetland Application was found inconsistent with the old LWRP. under administrative permit it is so small it doesn't even qualify to be reviewed under LWRP. So that's the reason for that. Like I say, they are taking two or three feet off the deck, so it will be smaller. I want to make a motion Page 5 OCTMIN-Final to approve it as an administrative permit. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Second. TRUSTEE KING: All in favor? ALL AYES. MR. NATALIE: Kevin Natalie, landscape architect on behalf of Monte and carolyn Redman. TRUSTEE KING: I spoke to the owner when I went out on field inspection and I asked her, it's really such a simple thin9' why didn't you apply through the administratlve permit. MR. NATALIE: Maybe it was a misunderstanding at the town and they advised us to go this route and so we were just playing by the rules of the board, the town. unfortunately, the green slips came back to us. I don't know if I need to submit that for the record. TRUSTEE KING: It was just a minor -- MR. NATALIE: I appreclate that. Thank you. TRUSTEE KING: She will get a refund on the fee, part of the fee. MR. NATALIE: very good, thank you, very much. Have a good evening. TRUSTEE KING: Thank you. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: patricia Moore, Esq., on behalf of Ruth Falbel Schwartz, requests an administrative permit to landscape the cleared areas and add privacy vegetation along Gagen's Landing Road. Located 2350 Clearview Avenue, southold. SCTM#70-10-28.3. we all looked at this and the plan in the file o 7 permit. The plan was fine. The only comment, we wanted to make sure that the planting, the revegetation planting along Gagen's Landing is planted on the lnside of the property line so it doesn't encroach on town property. MS. MOORE: Yes, that's the plan. TRUSTEE KING: Are they planting trees, pat? MS. MOORE: Um, yes, they have, they were thinking of some kind of either evergreens or trees. I don't know that they actually made a decision on that yet. You know, just privacy screening. TRUSTEE KING: If they are goin9 to plant trees, they should plant them pretty well lnside the property line, because trees grow and get bigger. MS. MOORE: They are not going to encroach on the town's right of way. One, they can't do it, but secondly -- TRUSTEE KING: But if you plant the tree on the property line, as the tree grows it will end up over on town property, you know. MS. MOORE: My understanding is that they are going to be planting them on their property. I think they have the landscaper, that is, I would hope do that, but. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Can we see, once they decide what they Page 6 OCTMIN-Final want to do, could we see a plan? MS. MOORE: what we could do is send you a letter and advise you if it's going to be cedar trees, which grow more round and closer to the property line, or trees that have canopies. If it's canopy trees, do you have any -- do you care or you don't care? TRUSTEE DOHERTY: well, what we want to do is communicate with Highway Department because they are the one that has to maintain that road, and we want to find out if it's going to be a problem for them. Because the plan you have, you just said privacy plants, and if it's kind of on the llne -- MS. MOORE: I don't know that they actually made a decision, so. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: And that's fine. But once they make a decision, if they could let us know, then we could work with you. MS. MOORE: sure, that's fine. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: I make a motion to approve administrative permit for the schwartz's with the condition that once they decide what they are doing, they let us know, show us and we could review the plantlngs o 8 with them. MS. MOORE: I'll say here keep them on the property. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Keep them inside the property line. MS. MOORE: Right. TRUSTEE DICKERSON: Second. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: All in favor? ALL AYES. MS. MOORE: Thank you. TRUSTEE KING: Did we do any duck blinds? TRUSTEE DOHERTY: I talked to Don Dzenkowski, our bay constable, and he inspected it, he said there is one other duck blind in that area and where they want to put this duck blind is fine. I think they have to be 100 feet, has to be 100 feet circulation around from where they are shooting and he said it will fit and will be fine. So I'll make a motion to approve Frank Scholl, Jr., for a duck blind in wickham's creek, access is public. TRUSTEE DICKERSON: Second. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: All in favor? ALL AYES. TRUSTEE KING: Five, Applications for Amendments, Extensions and Transfers. TRUSTEE BERGEN: I'll be glad to do number one. Again, these are not public hearings but we do welcome some brief comments on these. 1. Mary zupa requests an amendment to construct a docking facility 20 feet previously approved location. Located: page 7 to permit #6214 west of the 580 Basin Road in OCTMIN-Final southold. The board went out and looked at this and it's a little bit of an unusual situation because there is a dock that is in the approximate location of where the zupas had proposed to place their dock, their new dock, that we had ordered taken out, and that dock does have to be taken out. It's not the zupa's property. It's the Paradise cove property owners Association dock and they had to take it out. In looking at this, I came up with what I thought might be a good solution to this issue in that I felt that there would be a lot of damage to the environment caused by taking out an old dock plus putting in a new dock, and obviously the costs involved. so I was wondering if the dock could simply be, the structure itself could be simply transferred or sold for a minimal price from the Paradise cove property OWners o 9 Association to the zupas. we 90t a letter from Cathy Masciano saying they agreed wlth that. since then, I know Paradise point Property OWners Association brought up a concern that in the reconfiguration of the main dock down there, that what the trustees had directed paradise property OWners Association to do, it meant moving that dock ten feet in the direction of where this proposed dock is and reconfiguring it, so it's longer than it is presently. The results of all this being that to put this dock, what the zupas are requesting to the location where the existing dock is would put the two docks very close together and the feeling was that that could be a problem as far as navigation of boats in and out of these docks. I went down there tonight and I looked at these and there is approximately 40 feet between these two docks as presently exists. But, again, what I'm looking at now is a plan of what we asked Paradise Property OWners Association to do, which was an extension quite a bit longer than what the fin~ers of those docks are. so I would agree it s a problem to bring this dock over to where the dock is presently that we ordered to be removed, to do the trade off, as I wanted. So that's, like I said, nothin9 is simple with these applications. TRUSTEE KING: Especlally in that neighborhood. TRUSTEE BERGEN: particularly down there. So, I don't know if there is anybody here who would like to make any brief comments on this. MR. ZUPA: Yes. My name is Victor Zupa on behalf of my wife, the applicant, Mary Zupa. The board had previously issued a permit allowing the dock which was 20 feet, I guess east of what we asked Page 8 OCTMIN-Final for now, and the problem with that is where the dock was located was in less than a foot of water and any boat at that location would cause an obstruction for ingress and egress to the canal. And it appears as if the only possible solution would be to put it, the only place that we could possibly have a dock is put it in the present location. The dock that was permitted, as the board knows, the dock that was permitted for the association was done without the permission of the property owner Mary Zupa and because of that, among other things, that is presently on appeal in an Article 78 proceeding, o 10 unfortunately, before court. So if the property owner is to have any dock, that's the only possible location for it. I realize though, since it comes out 40 feet, the board approved on the association dock, my opinion, and they were three feet wide, they looked to be somewhat extraordinarily long for somebody to walk out to the end of that. I don't know how many pilings would be in place but it would seem to wallow. I mean, without agreeing with that, there are other issues in the dispute between the association and the zupas, without getting into it, that's what I think is a more appropriate solution is shorten those fingers, which I don't believe are going to be usable at 40 feet long, three feet wide. That's without conceding the appropriateness of the permit being issued in the first place on behalf of the association without the land owner's permission. But I'll answer any other questions you may have. But with respect to that, we thought the proposal Mr. Bergen made was acceptable to us and would cause the least amount of damage to the environment and we would be willing to pay a reasonable amount for the dock to the association. TRUSTEE BERGEN: I have a hydrographic survey that is stamped received October 19, 2005, and if you would like to come up and see this. It shows that where your original dock location is, at one end is barely off the bottom; at the far end is in three-and-a-half to 4.6 feet of water. MR. ZUPA: (perusing.) Yes, that, I should go back and talk into the microphone. TRUSTEE BERGEN: sure. Thank you. MR. ZUPA: I don't know how those measurements came out because when Bobby, when Sea Level Mapping put the stake in, I actually walked out there and you could wade out there and then when the DEe came out to deny the permit, page 9 OCTMIN-Final they said there was less than one foot of water in there, and they actually sent us a letter denying and said we can't allow a dock to go in with less than one feet of water. So I don't know those figures. That you know, I'm trying how Sea Level Mapping arrived at might have been the original one, to look -- o 11 TRUSTEE BERGEN: The survey says september 1, 2005, and amended October 4, 2005. That's what it says on here. TRUSTEE KING: There could have been more shoaling there in a year's time. TRUSTEE BERGEN: Absolutely. MR. ZUPA: I don't know if that's the original survey that was put in with the application, but my understanding was there was a change made by the board, and then cathy Masciano sent in a letter sayin~ she had a new survey, if I could show the board that, WhlCh doesn't have those depths on it, that was done to prepare it in accordance with the ultimate resolution reached by the board. If you like, I could approach and bring this up. TRUSTEE BERGEN: Sure. Sure. MR. ZUPA: I'm not sure which one was approved, offhand. TRUSTEE BERGEN: We have that in. MR. ZUPA: Is that the same one? TRUSTEE BERGEN: It's the same, but doesn't have the depth. Thank you. MR. ZUPA: That's my only copy. TRUSTEE BERGEN: Here you go. Because we have it. (handing.) Is there anybody else here who would like to speak, either regarding this application -- yes, sir? Again, if you keep your comments brief, we appreciate it. MR. ANGEL: My name is Steven Angel, Essex, Hefter & Angel. We are the attorneys for paradise point Association. And just a couple of quick comments. First, in connection with this concept of permission, I have to say two things. And I did supply you, I believe, with some documentation within the last day or two. There is an easement over the shoreline of the 580 parcel, the parcel that is the subject of this application, that runs along the entire basin side of the parcel and that easement has been confirmed by the courts and that easement grants to my client, the association, the free and unobstructed access to the basis and canal for all purposes, including to construct and maintain bulkheads, jetties, docks for boating and the maintenance of those types of structures. So what we have is effectively -- and that was done in a deed in 1989 by the predecessor in title. so, in page 10 OCTMIN-Final effect -- not in effect. In reality, in legality, we are the ones who control -- we being the association -- o 12 control that shore front. Also, Mr. Zupa made reference to the Article 78 proceeding that he brought from the determinations made by this board in connection with the dock permit application that the association made, which resulted in the reconfiguration that Trustee Bergen was referring to. That Article 78 was just recently decided, I thlnk October 11. I think Mr. and Mrs. zupa's petition was dismissed and your determination for the reconfiguration of the dock was confirmed. I think I supplied you with a copy that we just got it off the computer, fortuitously, yesterday. I would reiterate what is stated in my letter, which was also mentioned briefly by Trustee Bergen, that I think that the location of a dock to serve the zupa parcel in this particular case or this particular location would literally defeat the purpose of that reconfigured dock application. I think if you scale it off you are looking at ten or 11 feet between the most close dock and the proposed location without even boats moored at it. I'm here to answer any of your questions. I should point out, also, and it is reflected in the decision of the court, in response to this, in the dismissal of the Article 78 proceeding, that in large part your determination to move the docks ten feet closer to where the new dock, where they seek to put the new dock, was done at the request of Mr. and Mrs. Zupa for greater access to their dock on the 385 property. So we are being put in sort of a Catch 22 situation. we moved it away from them and now they want to put a dock in there to effectively defeat the use of one side of it. I would be pleased to answer any other questions. Any questions? TRUSTEE BERGEN: I do have the material here that you have submitted both yesterday and today. So we are aware of the Article 78 decision that was in favor of the trustees. I am also, I have the other document that you talked about that talks about this easement with free, unobstructed access to the basin or canal and to include the construction and maintenance of bulkheads, jetties or docks. we are doing that. We have done that and we granted -- what we have done already meets that page 11 OCTMIN-Final o 13 definition with allowing this longer dock to be reconfigured. MR. ANGEL: I agree. I'm not saying that the trustees have any obligations there. What I'm saying is that in the chain of title to the Zupa property there was a relinquishment of rights and acknowledgment that the association had free and unobstructed use. You certainly have control over where the docks are placed but as between the owners of that property and the holders of the easement, their rights have been defined among them. TRUSTEE BERGEN: You are getting into what I'll little bit of a gray area. we are not here to say whether the court's decision is correct or with regard to the easement or anything. That what we are here to determine tonight. All we to determine tonight is to act on an amendment permit of a previously approved dock to see if be moved over and placed here. MR. ANGEL: I understand that. TRUSTEE BERGEN: And that's what we are dealing with here. I don't want to get mixed up with other issues here. MR. ANGEL: That's fine. We have taken our position TRUSTEE BERGEN: The other thing, I know we already said that this approved plan with two 40-foot swings, what the trustees approved for the paradise Association, is there any way the paradise Point Property OWners Association would agree to cut that down, that length from 40 feet to a lesser amount so we can then get this other dock into where there is presently a dock? Again, what I'm looking at here is the harm to the environment that is being done because of this battling going on between these parties. And I'm trying to mitigate the harm to the environment. plus, in essence, save both people some money with the cost of ripping out a dock and cost of putting in a dock. That's all I'm trying to see if we can accomplish. If we can't, we can't. But that's what I'm trying to do. MR. ANGEL: In quick answer to your question, at the risk of sounding abrupt, it's not. I obviously have to take it back to my client. But I think that some of the members of the board are aware that the approved dock say is a try and to incorrect is not are here of a that could Page 12 OCTMIN-Final D 14 configuration did result in the loss of two or three slips, I believe. Four slips. So there was already a compromise as part of that approval process. TRUSTEE BERGEN: You answered the question. The answer is no. MR. ANGEL: Any other questions? TRUSTEE KING: It's not going to go anywhere. TRUSTEE BERGEN: what I would like to do is move to table this so the board can go out and look at the staked location of where the Zupas propose this to go, because it was not staked as we were out there the other day, and that way we can get a better idea exactly where we are looking at. MR. ZUPA: If I may make a couple of comments, briefly. First, on the record, Mr. Angel is absolutely incorrect. we never asked for the dock to be moved over ten feet. what we asked for was the extension to be removed. That was totally to the extent a dock was placed there, the extension should not be there. It would seem that the dock moved in to where it was along the lines of the settlement proposal that we offered them that would be on the 75x75 track would be acceptable. That's the first thing. The second thing is the court has never affirmed that the easement gives the association the permission of the land owner visa vie an application for a dock permit. The wetlands code specifically provides that you must have the permission of the land owner. Mr. Angel's interpretation is his interpretation. TRUSTEE BERGEN: okay. Thank you, very much. I move we table this application. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Second. TRUSTEE BERGEN: Sorry. If it's very brief. Because this is not a public hearing. MS. COLLIER: IS this on the record? TRUSTEE BERGEN: Yes, it is. MS. COLLIER: Andrea Collier. My husband asked me to be present to put somethin9 on the record. It's just our feeling that a lot of tlme and money has already been spent by you and the taxpayers on this configuration and our main concern, as you have heard before, this is on the record, um, we are very concerned about the adherence to the one-third rule. so anything that is going to cause that to be compromised, with what has already been D 15 page 13 OCTMIN-Final given to the association, we would be certainly against ln violating the one-third rule. TRUSTEE BERGEN: Thank you. We have a motion and a second. All in favor of tabling this application? ALL AYES. TRUSTEE BERGEN: Thank you. TRUSTEE DICKERSON: patricia C. Moore, Esq., on behalf of carol witschieben and Janet Witschieben Larsen requests an amendment to permit #6436 to construct a one-story addition with 18.4 feet on the west and 26.4 feet on the east with a screened-in porch and covered entry way that is.approxim~tely 64 long. Located: 1000 Sound Beach Drlve, Mattltuck. TRUSTEE KING: Can I interrupt for a second, Pat. Don wilder, the CAC member I talked about earlier, will be here. TRUSTEE DICKERSON: The board Looked at this and didn't have a problem with it. CAC supports the application with the condition of a drainage plan. It's consistent with LWRP and is there anything else you wanted to add? MS. MOORE: No, I'm here to respond to any questions. The drainage, there are drywells shown all throughout this plan. TRUSTEE DICKERSON: Any other comments from the board? TRUSTEE KING: I think this is basically a down sizing, isn't it, from what they originally wanted? MS. MOORE: It is. It's been a reconfiguration and it's now a one-story from a two-story. TRUSTEE KING: It looked a little simpler to me. MS. MOORE: It is. The pool right now, it had already been approved. we may end up having to relocate the pool, but that will be later on. Rl~ht now we have the pool in its original location and we 11 keep it there until otherwise. Thank you. TRUSTEE DICKERSON: If nobody has any other comments I'll make a motion to approve the amendment to permit #6436 to construct a one-story addition as stated. Do I have a second? TRUSTEE KING: Second. TRUSTEE DICKERSON: All in favor? ALL AYES. TRUSTEE DICKERSON: So moved. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Boulevard planning on behalf of Don and Mary JO Murphy requests an amendment to permit #6303 to remove the existing residence and reconstruct within the o ~ same footprint as the existing residence. Located: 9905 Nassau Point Road, cutchogue. The board has been out there twice, recently, and we compared surveys and what is out there and we feel that page 14 OCTMIN-Final it is within the same footprint. And I see that it is inconsistent but I don't see any LWRP report in the file. SECRETARY STANDISH: It's in the original one. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Let me just look at that. MR. LEHNERT: The new survey came back following the existing footprint of the house. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: The inconsistency is of course the 100 feet. It's 91 feet. And he mentions the same, sediment controls and gutters, drywells and replantin~ and disease resistant, drought tolerant landscaping to mlnimize irrigation and fertilization. The CAC approved. They support the application and is there any comment from the board? (No response.) MR. GROSSMAN: I'm here on the application when the gentleman is finished, representing the opposing property owner. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: DO we have any questions of the applicant; the consultant to the applicant? (NO response.) I think you have answered all our questions previously, so. MR. LEHNERT: Thank you. MR. GROSSMAN: Good evening members of the board, Adam Grossman. I'm here on behalf of the adjacent property owner, carl Hoelzl who is actually sittlng right next to me. I'm just here to give some submissions and speak very briefly. I know you have a busy agenda and full audience tonight. I have some photographs to submit, memorandum, actually, of myself, and also one from my client that I just wanted to submit into the record. I know this is technically not a public hearing but I have some documentation for you. (Handing). I know that MS. Doherty, you indicated and the board has concluded what has been done on the property is consistent with the footprint in connection with the original application. My client has indicated to me that he questions whether in fact that is the case, but I'm not going to, I'll honor whatever conclusion you have made, but my client has actually submitted documentation D 17 questioning that. we also have photographs as to what was on the property, just to show what exactly occurred. And I also submitted a brief memorandum of law. Actually not of law, just an affirmation in opposition to the application because my client is very much concerned about his adjacent vacant property being ne~atively impacted by the changes that were made and lt may be that they are consistent with the original application and maybe that is not the case. page 15 OCTMIN-Final My client is nevertheless concerned that in fact what is changed in terms of footprint will in fact enlarge the size of the ultimate structure and his concern is it won't be consistent with the plan. I'm not the planner, I was not the one who put the documentation together. But my client is very concerned about that. That's the reason I'm here this evening. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: We questioned it, too. That's why we went out again and we spent some time there and some time reviewing everything in the file. um, and we all concluded that with the measuring done and everything, it's within the same footprint. Does the board have anything -- MR. GROSSMAN: I appreciate your efforts. I just also included in my affirmation, if in fact anythlng the applicant did was in violation of what was originally approved that that should be taken very seriously by the board, that the board needs to address that. But it sounds to me as if the board has concluded otherwise, so. I nevertheless wanted to have my submission as well as any photographs because, again, I'm not an expert in terms of what the dimensions are and in all honesty it was a little hard for me, we don't have the whole file to be able to review everything, but we nevertheless wanted to be here to express Mr. Hoelzl's objections. MR. HOELZL: My name is carl Hoelzl. There are several things that I would like to bring up. The comment page there, there is a new patio being put in. It's not the existing patio. If you review the drawings, and it's very hard to see it, there is a new patio. It's going to be about two-and-a-half feet high, extending from the house to the bluff. You see that in the elevation, right, and the comment and the aerial photos, satellite photos and the applicant's own surveys show that the D 18 patio that was there before was much smaller and in a different location. with that patio now being, I think it's about 41 feet by 26 feet, going to the edge of the bluff, there is going to be substantial runoff of that on to the bluff, down the slope and possibly undermining the slope there. As to the comment that it was the footprint of the original home, all right, the satellite photos, and I have the surveys and the applicant has two surveys now. The original one that he filed here and a new one now, and you can see looking at those that the footprint of the house is much larger than the original one. I have copies here. If you don't have copies, I have copies to show you that. page 16 OCTMIN-Final It was a substantial expansion of the footprint of the home. YOU granted that he could reduce, knock down the rear portion of the home and then when he came in, after he did that, he came in and demolished the entire front section of the home, okay, without coming back to the Board of Trustees or the Building Department in any way and demolished it. unless I had reported it, okay, nothing would have happened and he would have gone merrily on his way and it would have been framed out. So my contention is that the footprint does not cover or is in excess of the original footprint of the house and that the patio which he says is the existing patio, is not. And in essence he violated the permit and we have a, basically, a total demolition of the waterfront home within 25 feet of the bluff. I think the photographs which I have given you and so forth, document that. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Thank you. we are just reviewing as you are telling us. MR. HOELZL: I understand. There is a lot there. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: okay, we are looking at the original approval we ~ave back, the previous board gave February 15, 2006. I 11 just read what they approved. Wetland permit to construct additions and alterations to existing dwelling with conditions of a silt fence and line of hay bales seaward of the house during construction. Drywells to contain roof runoff non-turf, non-disturbance buffer from existing house to the bluff and all as depicted on the plans drawn by Boulevard planning 2/28/06. We looked at the plans that we have here and that is o 19 whac is chere now and whac chey are proposing. MR. HOELZL: What happened on the proposal on the 15th of February, he issued an outline of plans. No one ever saw those additional plans. I don't know what additions he has made and if you look at that from what he had proposed on the 15th, the footprint has gone well beyond what he proposed on the 15th. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: okay, we have the plans here from the 15th, from the approval date of the 15th. And as far as what we are looking at, we don't feel that has changed. MR. HOELZL: well, why aren't the plans in consonance with the items I received from them showing the outline of the modification? TRUSTEE DOHERTY: DO you have the plans dated 2/28/06? MR. HOELZL: NO, I have the plans that were given to me, I attended the meeting dated 2/15/06, and that was originally given when I gave the initial set of photographs to the board of trustees. I included that package that was presented to me to appear before the page 17 OCTMIN-Final board meeting here. And that footprint is smaller than what is there now. In essence, you have given him the approval to demolish a waterfront home in its entirety the footprint. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: That is your opinion. Our opinion, we have the plans shown here and in comparing the plans that were approved February 15th and to these other plans now, we feel that they are the same and it was not expanded. MR. HOELZL: why do they differ from what was given out at the meeting? TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Because we asked for a plan of what was there and we don't see that they differ. We asked for the new foundation plans and we don't see that they differ. we took a good look at it. MR. HOELZL: May I see it? TRUSTEE DOHERTY: sure. MR. HOELZL: (perusing.) Thank you. TRUSTEE BERGEN: These are the plans that were submitted originally and this is the patio that you had talked about and there it is. The patio was there. It was there when the plans were originally submitted. YOU allege the patio was added on after the fact? MR. LEHNERT: I do have the approved set of plans from the Building Department. MR. HOELZL: But they say "existing patio" on the o 20 application and it is not. The photographs and their surveys -- TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Excuse me, can you go back to the microphone. MR. HOELZL: Sure. I'm sorry. TRUSTEE BERGEN: If you would step back to the microphone. Again, I want to remind everyone, this is not a public hearing. This is only an amendment to the permit. MR. HOELZL: I have the drawings here. I would like you to compare the drawing the gentleman just looked at, the first floor, and the drawings that they are proposing now. YOU can see they are different. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: what is this dated? TRUSTEE BERGEN: 10/28. It's the same. MR. HOELZL: But the one you just showed me, the one that was approved back then, you could see that the footprint is dramatically different. That footprint does not cover this footprint. It's very obvious. It's different. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: This the last update 9/8/06. This is 11/1/05. That's why. MR. HOELZL: That's the one you said was approved at the meeting. I'm saying that one is different from the original one and the one he has now, the foundation is page 18 OCTMIN-Final different from that. It's larger. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Your comment was that TRUSTEE BERGEN: This is not a public hearing. we are really not supposed to take comments. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: what your comment was, was the porch, was different, and we were trying to show you the porch is not different. MR. HOELZL: I'm not talking the porch. I'm talking here. If you overlay the foundations, it's different. It's larger now than what was there. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Let me just find the stamped one. MR. HOELZL: All I ask is that you compare it, overlay them and you can see the new one is larger. The foundation that is there is larger. MR. LEHNERT: Another comment to the board. TRUSTEE KING: I want to table this thin9' look at the prints and compare them. If the footprlnt is larger from the original permit, we'll write the amendment to include that enlargement, if that is so. MR. LEHNERT: I provided a survey of the foundation as it D 21 sits right now. You have that information. I provided the, you know, the plans, amended plans. TRUSTEE KING: Let me speak. This amendment reads, it's a request to demolish the existing residence and reconstruct within the same footprint as the existing residence. If the older existing residence was smaller, if this is just an amendment to reconstruct with this increase in size. That's what we'll be looking at, if we find this discrepancy. Because like I say, this is not a public hearing. I don't want this to turn into a debate. we'll be here all night over this. we'll table it and find this out. I make a motion to table this application. TRUSTEE DICKERSON: second. TRUSTEE KING: All in favor? ALL AYES. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: I still don't know if it's necessary to do that. I think we have all the information (perusing). I don't know if we need to table it again. we put it off, we had all these and reviewed them. MR. LEHNERT: If it would make it easier, could I submit the approved Building Department plans from the original permit? TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Sure. MR. LEHNERT: (Handing). TRUSTEE KING: where are the plans from the original permit that we approved? MR. LEHNERT: That's there. That got past from the Building Department and was approved for a full permit. MR. HOELZL: If you look at it, the foundation drawing is page 19 OCTMIN-Final now longer. Look here. It's quite clear. If you want me to get the foundation drawing out now -- TRUSTEE DOHERTY: That's what we are looking at, the foundation. MR. HOELZL: That's the one approved by the Building Department back then. I'm saying the new foundation is now larger than that and the drawing shows it. TRUSTEE KING: we are getting two different stories here. MR. LEHNERT: That was the approved plan in the field. MR. HOELZL: That's the old one, correct. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: This is the current approved plan by the Building Department. MR. HOELZL: Yes, and he's saying the footprint he has there now overlays that. I'm saying it does not. I have the plan here that says it doesn't overlay it. It comes o 22 out further. It's obvious when you compare the two drawings. We are not doing apples and oranges here. The other plan is larger. The foundation and the floor plan layout is larger. I don't know how this gentleman can stand here and say it isn't. TRUSTEE BERGEN: The board has been out there several times and looked at it. It's my feeling, looking at the plans, and my understanding is the Building Department has been out there and looked at it also. And my understanding is we have all concluded that it is on the identical footprint. MR. HOELZL: Can I show you the other drawin9 again? You can measure it. Take a ruler. I measured It. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: I would like to -- I don't know what other proof we need. It shows the same as this. MR. LEHNERT: The plans are there. The foundation survey is there. MR. HOELZL: The foundation survey is a new foundation that was put in here to demolish the front. That's what the foundation plan is. If you compare the floor plans and put them side-by-side, okay, the difference is obvious there. TRUSTEE KING: I'll rescind my motion to table this hearing. MR. JOHNSTON: Are you making a motion to reopen? TRUSTEE KING: I'll reopen it. TRUSTEE BERGEN: second. TRUSTEE KING: All in favor? ALL AYES. I'll state what I just stated, since we now reopened it. we went out and looked at this a couple of times and the building department has been out there and we all concluded this is on the same footprint. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: where are you talking about? Are you just talking about over here? page 20 OCTMIN-Final MR. HOELZL: Yes. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: I'm confused because I thought you were talking about the porch the whole time. TRUSTEE KING: My point is if they expanded this size at all, just re-write the amendment to include that expansion. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: And can I note this is out of our jurisdiction, this part of it. This is well beyond 100 feet. It's out of our jurisdiction. TRUSTEE KING: Then it's not even necessary. D 23 TRUSTEE DOHERTY: That's what I'm trying to say. I thought we were talking about the porch the whole time. MR. HOELZL: I mentioned that this is now a two-and-a-half foot raised patio to the edge of the bluff. MR. LEHNERT: It's on the original approved plan. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Thank you, for your comments and concerns. I'll give this back to you. I would like to thank everybody for their comments. The board has gone out here several times and we really have taken a good look at this and I would like to make a motion to approve this amendment, and I will read the conditions of the original permit for the record. Those original conditions are still part of it. The CAC supports this application, this amendment to this application and the LWRP, original comments from February, are, like I said, the typical setback, the hay bales, drought tolerant landscape to minimize and the ~utters, down spouts and drywells which were all lmplemented in the original permit. so that therefore we find it deem this application to be consistent, and I make a motion that we approve this amendment according to the approved Building Department plans which the Building Department approved it on 4/7/06. That is the same plan that we have in our file. And of course all the conditions of the original permit still apply. DO we have a second? TRUSTEE BERGEN: Second. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: All in favor? ALL AYES. Thank you. TRUSTEE KING: Number four, Proper-T Permit Services on behalf of Andrew Weiner requests an amendment to permit #6072 to allow the use of three-pile bays in the construction of the docking facility, as protection against winter ice damage, and a one-year extension to permit #6072 as issued on January 19, 2005. Located at 2185 westview Drive, Mattituck. I'm just looking at this. Are you the speaker on behalf of this application? page 21 OCTMIN-Final MR. FITZGERALO: Yes, I am. My name is Jim Fitzgerald. I represent the weiners, and I would like to read that, if I may. May I? TRUSTEE KING: YOU want to read this into the record? MR. FITZGERALD: Yes, if that's okay. o 24 TRUSTEE KING: I don't see a reason for it. MR. FITZGERALD: The reason I'm here, the reason I'm standing here is because during the last inspection when the trustees were out there, somebody, maybe the trustees as a group, indicated that you were, how shall I put it, not anxious to have three-pile bays. And that's why I spent the time to make that list of stuff. And particularly to bring you some really neat photographs of all the three-pile bays. TRUSTEE KING: Did you take pictures of the two-pile docks? MR. FITZGERALD: Yes. Some of them are included. TRUSTEE KING: All of them? MR. FITZGERALD: No, but not all the three-pile bays are either. TRUSTEE KING: (perusing.) This was built very heavy because this gentleman has a dragger tied up to it. There is a lot of weight there to the boat itself. He goes out there with a handtruck. This is a two pile. My feeling is, I've seen a lot of the docks in Mattituck Creek. I seen three piles go up and two piles go up. I don't have any problem with three piles across the end of the dock to seal it in. That stops that end from lifting up. The rest, I think, is unnecessary. I really do. I think it's an unnecessary structure. MR. FITZGERALD: IS that a change in the feeling of the board? Because everybody -- TRUSTEE KING: As time goes on we try and reduce the impacts in sizes, yes. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: why don't we approve the amendment for one three pile and if in time you feel that is not enough then you can come back and request another amendment and see. TRUSTEE KING: I know what they want. They want to try and build it now while it's being built rather than add a third piling after construction. I think it's unnecessary. I lived Mattituck creek 42 years. I seen a lot of two-pile docks go up in the air, I seen three-pile docks go up in the air. TRUSTEE DICKERSON: what other docks are in the creek? TRUSTEE KING: obviously the majority are two pile. Except where, you know, you have a commercial enterprise. I have a larger dock, but I'm on commercial property. page 22 OCTMIN-Final o 25 MR. FITZGERALD: I didn't select these as being the right ones. I just went out and took pictures of docks. TRUSTEE KING: I understand. I been to Mattituck Creek. I'm familiar with it. I know what the docks look like. MR. FITZGERALD: I'm sure. TRUSTEE KING: I just think it's unnecessary. It's going to save the client money, too. MR. FITZGERALD: But the point is that it amounts, in effect, in the mind of my client, insurance. And they are willing to pay the premium to have the work done. TRUSTEE KING: There is no insurance to what mother nature wants to do. MR. FITZGERALD: I understand that. TRUSTEE KING: YOU could put a five-pile dock. If we have a bad enough storm, that's going to go up in the air. MR. FITZGERALD: But I think the chances of a three-pile dock surviving a given ice effect are better than two pi 1 e. TRUSTEE KING: I think a two-pile dock with three piles at the end is sufficient enough. I don't want to this to turn into a debate. Jill has made a proposal. we'll approve two piles with three at the end of the dock and approve a one-year extension. Second that? TRUSTEE DICKERSON: I would second that. TRUSTEE KING: All in favor? ALL AYES. Thank you. MR. FITZGERALD: May I have the pictures, please? TRUSTEE KING: Sure (handing.) TRUSTEE DOHERTY: proper-T permit Services on behalf of stephen Matteini requests a transfer of permit #5890 from Helen w. Keith to Stephen Matteini, as issued on April 24, 2004. Located at 1060 willow Terrace Lane, orient. This is the one where the structure is already bui 1 t, ri ght? MR. FITZGERALD: Yes. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: I make a motion to approve that transfer. TRUSTEE KING: Second. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: All in favor? ALL AYES. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Approved, without discussion, I might add. TRUSTEE DICKERSON: En-Consultants, Inc., on behalf of Rosemary and sebastian Avolese requests the last one-year extension to permit #5829, as issued on November 19, Page 23 OCTMIN-Final D 26 2003, and amended on September 22, 2004, and March 22, 2006. Located: 4150 Wunneweta Road, Cutchogue. I don't think the board had any problem with this. If anyone needs to make any comments, I don't have a file in front of me, however -- TRUSTEE DOHERTY: We have no file. TRUSTEE DICKERSON: I'll make a motion to approve this request for a one-year extension. second? TRUSTEE DOHERTY: second. TRUSTEE DICKERSON: All in favor? ALL AYES. TRUSTEE KING: I'll make a motion to go over to regular hearing. TRUSTEE DICKERSON: Second. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: So moved. TRUSTEE KING: Open the public hearings. VII. PUBLIC HEARINGS TRUSTEE BERGEN: I have the first one. Again, we are opening public hearings. This is where we'll take comments. please keep your comments organized and brief, to five minutes or less. Number one, Julie MCGivney, on Behalf of Karnick and Haci Garipian requests a wetland permit and coastal erosion permit to replace, in-place, the existing bulkhead or repair same, dismantle the dilapidated steps to beach, cap off the unused clay drain hole leading to the beach, remove existing portion of deck landing seaward of the bulkhead and plant a 10-foot, non-turf buffer east of deck along the top of the bulkhead, remove existing enclosed porch and renovate and enlarge the existing dwelling, install drywells and new sanitary system, if required. Located: 54715 North Road, Southold. MS. MCGIVNEY: Jill MCGivney, I represent Karnick and Haci Garipian. The only thing I want to add to that is we are also requesting a foundation permit, if required. It's in the body of the application. It was just not on the front of the public hearing. I just wanted to add that. other than that, I'll let you ask me questions. TRUSTEE BERGEN: Okay. Before we get to that, the LWRP coordinator found this inconsistent. The reason is it's within 100 feet of the wetlands. And the CAC -- bear with me for a minute -- the CAC resolved to support the application with the condition of a ten-foot, non-turf Page 24 OCTMIN-Final o 27 buffer along the entire bluff. NOW, we did go out and look at this and we had some questions about it. But I'll shortcut that. I understand there is an outstanding violation to this property with a court date set of November 3. MS. MCGIVNEY: Yes. TRUSTEE BERGEN: Our policy has been that we want all outstanding violations to be taken care of first before we go ahead and act on the permit requests. So what I would like to do in order to save time here tonight is table this until the court date comes around and there is a decision made in court re~arding the violation and then we can and back to the appllcation. MS. MCGIVNEY: okay, I did speak with, already, I spoke with the town attorney and we will hopefully resolving this on the 3rd. So the only thing that I would just ask if you can address tonight is the bulkhead issue of in-place or inkind replacement before the next hearing. TRUSTEE BERGEN: We did look at the bulkhead. This is an unusual bulkhead. It's not your traditional. It was kind of done with railroad ties crossed back and forth to each other. We would like to see it replaced in-place and we are recommending instead of deadmen going back into that bluff, because the bluff is so short, to use helix screws that will act the same as and function the same as deadmen back into the bluff. we are recommending that. That saves you from havin~ to excavate that narrow bluff dramatically, put deadmen In. MS. MCGIVNEY: Because the dock builder had said he thought the same thing and reading this, he said if we could do an inkind replacement of only a ten inch projection, the wall could be built up using that helix screws you are talking about. so he wanted, you are recommending in place but -- TRUSTEE BERGEN: Correct. Are you asking for a ten-inch bump out? MS. MCGIVNEY: Yes, as long as it's flush a~ainst the old wall, because to do in-place replacement, lt would have to be removed and the entire area would be -- TRUSTEE BERGEN: And bulkhead, people in the business of bulkheading do this. It's quite common to do inkind replacement of bulkhead. So we felt they could do this MS. MCGIVNEY: They could do inkind. TRUSTEE BERGEN: Yes. o 28 TRUSTEE DOHERTY: we'll felt you didn't have to take the Page 25 OCTMIN- Fi na 1 deadmen out. That you could cut them off and leave them in there. You won't have to rip everything out. MS. MCGIVNEY: Leave them there and -- TRUSTEE BERGEN: I think we have a mutual goal of trying not to disturb landward of the bulkhead, of the deadmen, or whatever is in there. MS. MCGIVNEY: okay, so I'll submit that additional information before the next hearing and hopefully we'll have that resolved. MR. JOHNSTON: Can we take a five-minute recess? TRUSTEE BERGEN: okay. TRUSTEE KING: we just want to get something straight. (After a five-mlnute recess, these proceedings continue as follows.) TRUSTEE KING: We are 90ing back on the record. we just needed to clarify a llttle discrepancy. TRUSTEE BERGEN: okay, back on the record again. The only other question I had before I make a motion to table this, is we did notice that the CCA lumber is still out there. It looked like the applicant had enclosed a little shed and stored it in there. We just hope that none of that CCA lumber is going to be used on this bulkheading or any structures there. MS. MCGIVNEY: NO. After they invited you out, obviously had no idea n TRUSTEE BERGEN: we saw it there and just wanted to make a note of it. MS. MCGIVNEY: I'll absolutely tell him that. May I ask, are we tabling it until this is resolved or can we put it over to the next hearing? TRUSTEE BERGEN: What I'm make a motion to do is to table this application until the violation is revolved in court, and then it will come back up at the next hearing after that is revolved in court, yes. MS. MCGIVNEY: Thank you, for your time. Good night. TRUSTEE BERGEN: DO I have a second? TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Second. TRUSTEE BERGEN: All in favor? ALL AYES. TRUSTEE DICKERSON: Twomey, Latham, Shea, Kelley on behalf of Eve MacSweeney requests a wetland permit and coastal erosion permit to revegetate the top of the bluff. Located at 1250 Soundvlew Avenue, southold. MS. DALLI: Good evening, ladies and gentlemen. catherine o 29 Dalli from Twomey, Latham & shea on behalf of the applicant. I understand that the board wanted to see the coastal erosion line on the survey so I have -- is that the case? TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Yes. TRUSTEE DICKERSON: Yes. I think when the board looked at page 26 OCTMIN-Final this we wanted some we wanted an approved planting plan for native planting in the original buffer. Do we want to increase the existing buffer now that we see the coastal erosion? This is four foot. The original buffer was four foot wide. CAC supports the application with the condition the bluff is revegetated, installation of a ten-foot non-turf buffer and stair construction plan stamped by an engineer. we are just looking at tonight, Don, so you know, we are looking at the revegetation of the bluff. MR. WILDER: And ten foot buffer back from the bluff TRUSTEE DICKERSON: At least. MS. DALLI: I have a question as to why the other application was postponed, because, the stairs -- TRUSTEE DICKERSON: It was. DO you want to address it? Let's address this first. we'll take care of this application first. MS. DALLI: Sure. TRUSTEE DICKERSON: what does the board feel about the buffer? Incorporate the four or go to two? TRUSTEE DOHERTY: what do you mean? TRUSTEE KING: It should have at least ten foot added to it. TRUSTEE BERGEN: I would be comfortable making it an even 15 feet. so we are adding ten foot, roughly, to it. MS. DALLI: Adding ten feet to the plan? TRUSTEE BERGEN: The current four foot. TRUSTEE DICKERSON: You have four foot. We would like to make it 15. MS. DALLI: Total of 15 feet. TRUSTEE DICKERSON: And you want to have them bring in a planting plan for native species that Heather would approve, that you could bring in to Heather cusack in the office. MS. DALLI: Now, we have a plan for rosa rugosa, Montauk daisies and American pennsylvania. IS there -- TRUSTEE DICKERSON: We would like to see a more extensive planting plan. And if you want any recommendations of o 30 species, native species, give Heather a call instead of coming in and having to redo it. MS. DALLI: okay. TRUSTEE DICKERSON: So I will move to approve the request for Wetland permit and Coastal Erosion Permit to revegetate the top of the bluff with a 15-foot buffer from the top of the bluff and on the condition that an approved planting plan be brought in to our environmental technician with native species. Do I have a second? TRUSTEE KING: Second. page 27 OCTMIN-Final TRUSTEE DICKERSON: All in favor? ALL AYES. MS. DALLI: Thank you. Is it possible to address the beach stairs? TRUSTEE DOHERTY: we have that postponed. MS. DALLI: I was not sure why. TRUSTEE BERGEN: They requested a postponement. TRUSTEE KING: There is a lot of questions on the house and renovations. TRUSTEE DICKERSON: There are questions on the house. It has some problems with it, so we want to look into it and do some research on it. TRUSTEE KING: Looks like there has been some recent renovations. It might have been done without the necessary permits. MS. DALLI: There was someone down on the premises. I have a letter from an engineer. Because my office had requested an updated CO of the property and we were told by the Building Department that they don't issue them. But to have engineer go out to the premises, inspect, compare it with the property card on file and he did just that and he wrote a letter saying that there were no changes and he attached some photos. I could submit that to the board if that would be of any help. TRUSTEE OOHERTY: Sure. That's the kind of questions we had and wanted to research and our office contacted your office and it has agreed to postpone it. I believe. SECRETARY STANDISH: They did. MS. DALLI: I was told -- TRUSTEE DOHERTY: well, we had questions that could not be answered in this form and we might want to go in and inspect it again. MS. DALLI: okay, thank you. (Handing). TRUSTEE DOHERTY: En-Consultants, Inc., on behalf of o 31 Warren and Susan Cannon requests a wetland permit and coastal erosion permit to restore -- TRUSTEE BERGEN: You skipped number three. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Sorry, pat. You're up. patricia Moore, Esq., on behalf of Angelo and Josephine padovan requests a wetland permit and coastal erosion permit to repair the existing shed. Located: Soundview Avenue, Southold. MS. MOORE: Pat Moore. I promised Rob Herman this is not going to be a marathon session. we have everything worked out, I think. I had given you, prior to the last time we were here, it was not the last meeting, I gave you drawings with the measurements, which I believe you confirmed all the measurements to be accurate. What we want to do is make repairs and replace the page 28 OCTMIN-Final old wood on this cabana or the storage building converted to a cabana. It's going to continue to be a storage building in the wintertime because, and I explained this at the site inspection, my client puts wood shutters up in the windows and encloses pretty much the whole thing with plywood in order to protect all of the outdoor furniture and everything else that he stores in there. So that will continue to be the case in the wintertime. you'll see him batten down the hatches and seal it up. The cabana itself will have the light bulb, will have light. It has the ability to have an outdoor shower, I think we discussed. water would come from the house as an exterior, as an out hose. NO heating, no inside plumbing and no sanitary. If I'm correct -- I'm basing my notes on the meeting. We also talked about including amending the application and including replacement of the stairs, the access steps that goes from the road down to the property. They are fine now but in short order they may need to be replaced, so we might as well include that into the inkind in-place, the stairs replacement. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: YOU don't have an approximate measurement of those, do you? MS. MOORE: I was looking at the survey. There is actually a survey from the original application. Actually this application as well, that the surveyor drew in, so we could try to scale them or I could provide for you measurements tomorrow or next couple of days. o 32 It does show, it shows us, from my memory and also from the survey, it's a platform at the top and then the stairs go straight down. That's what is there. That's what is showing on the survey as well. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Yes, we would want measurements of that. Should we have our office do it? MS. MOORE: It's up to you. It doesn't matter. They are there, so I could provide you a photograph and a measurement. can do you measurements of the stairs that are there; the wood stairs? we'll include it so you have it. (client responds affirmatively.) we can give you the measurement and you can confirm them, send one person out to confirm them. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: That's fine. IS there any other comment from the audience? (NO response.) Any other comment from the board? TRUSTEE BERGEN: The only thing I want to make sure is this is not going to be used for habitation purposes in the future. I want that on the record. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: We talked about this will not have any habitation, and the electricity is to only come from the Page 29 OCTMIN-Final main house. This is not to have its own electricity now or in the future. And we also talked about the runoff from the main house, the drainage problem there and a drywell that we discussed, that we have a drywell at the bottom of the seaward side of the driveway? MS. MOORE: It would actually be built into the sand. That's the question. Right now, from my memory, they actually, any beach, the grasses that were planted, were planted by them. So it's actually there is grass there, beach grass and sand. So if we were to put a drywell, it would pretty much disturb the 9rass and -- TRUSTEE DOHERTY: I don't know lf that's where we were talking. MS. MOORE: That's the low spot, so. TRUSTEE BERGEN: The base of the driveway in front of the garage is where all the water goes down to. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: The drywell in the driveway at the base of the driveway in front of the garage. If you want to come here. TRUSTEE BERGEN: we can mark it on the plan. MS. MOORE: I think I know where you are talking about. The only problem is that could be very expensive to cut into the driveway and cement, because that's blacktop and D 33 that's cement. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Maybe you could put it -- MS. MOORE: And it was recently -- it was resurfaced. TRUSTEE BERGEN: They could come in and cut a piece. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: They can cut a piece out of the driveway. That's a lot of volume of water that just sheets right down there, and I know it's vegetated in front and the sand and it's far from the water but still, it's too much going down there. MS. MOORE: All right, we'll come up with something. Maybe he could talk to somebody, maybe a trench, like a trench drain type of trench across the driveway. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: whatever kind of plan you want that will work. MS. MOORE: I'll let him talk to those that know. That's fine. TRUSTEE BERGEN: I think that's a great idea. Trench drain cut through so you are only cutting through a small section. MS. MOORE: DO you understand what they are suggesting? (Client responds affirmatively.) TRUSTEE DOHERTY: You can do at the end of the real estate there, a foot-wide trench, and then you can put the drywell in the lawn. MS. MOORE: I understand. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Any other comments? (NO response.) page 30 OCTMIN-Final It is exempt from LWRP and CAC. Their ori~inal approval from May 10, 2006, they said they approve lt with the condition of repair inkind in-place only, no treated lumber, no plumbing, no inkind -- the inkind, in-place limited to the existing footprint of the shed only and does not include the deck. We pretty much have the same. I'll make a motion to close the public hearing. TRUSTEE KING: Second. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: All in favor? ALL AYES. I'll make a motion to approve the application of patricia Moore on behalf Angelo and Josephine padovan for the coastal Erosion permit and wetland Permit to repair the existing shed with the conditions that it does not have any plumbing, runnin~ water inside; the only electricity comes from the existlng house next to it, and; this is never to be inhabited. And I'll include the stairs that are to the side of it to be replaced inkind, in-place, D 34 measurements to be determined, and; also a drywell to be placed to catch the runoff from the existing driveway. TRUSTEE DICKERSON: Second. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: All in favor? ALL AYES. MS. MOORE: Thank you. TRUSTEE KING: Number four, En-consultants, Inc., on behalf of warren and Susan Cannon requests a wetland permit and coastal erosion permit to restore and stabilize portion of the eroded bluff by grading and translatin~ landward existing bluff crest to remove vertical IIp; using approximately 25 cubic yards of resultant material and approximately 390 cubic yards clean sand to be trucked in from an upland source, renourish bluff face; stabilizing fill with erosion control matting; and planting bluff face with beach grass, rose and bayberry. Located: 4625 Aldrich Lane Extension, Laurel. MR. HERMAN: Rob Herman, En-consultants, on behalf of warren and Susan Cannon. This is the last of a series of similar applications we have had before this board with top down washouts that are still really resulting from the flood rains we had last October. It's similar to what we have proposed and the board has approved previously on similar applications, although the washout here is at least they have the luxury of being a little more focused in location. we are planning to renourish the bluff face which will be accomplished in part by peelin~ back some of that vertical lift as the board typically wlshes to see and using that natural material to fill the void along with page 31 OCTMIN-Final material to be trucked in. That would then be stabilized with matting as the board has requested in prior applications, and also stabilized with vegetation as noted on our plan, and we would propose to establish a ten-foot, non-turf buffer landward of where the work is being done. There is a variable width buffer that exists really behind the crested bluff on the non-washed out portions of the bluff already. If the board wants to formalize that ten-foot strip along that entire bluff strip, we could do that. we have not proposed planting in those areas because some of those areas the plantation has already well established and is not in need of any sort o 35 of enhancement. If the board has any questions I'm happy to answer them. TRUSTEE KING: Thank you. I'm looking at the field notes. we suggested 20-foot buffer along the whole edge there, rather than ten-foot. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: And to go along the whole part of the property, not just the section -- MR. HERMAN: well, there is an area that is about five feet wide already that is being translated back which is one of the reasons we didn't go as far as back with it. If you want to split the difference, based on that, and maybe say is-feet along the entire crest, I think that would be agreeable. TRUSTEE KING: That sounds good to me. MR. HERMAN: I know I discussed it with the owners and they were concerned because, in other words, they were volunteering to sort of lose another five feet to help themselves, just to maybe reduce the intrusion as much as possible, and of course they'll establish enough area -- TRUSTEE KING: I think 15 feet is reasonable. MR. HERMAN: I have the complete revised plan. TRUSTEE KING: CAC recommended approval. They don't have recommendation for buffer size or anything. Just to support it. I believe it's consistent with LWRP. Are there any other comments in this application? (NO response.) Being no other comments, I'll make a motion to close the hearing. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Second. TRUSTEE KING: All in favor? ALL AYES. I'll make a motion to approve the application with the one change that there be a is-foot buffer along the entire length of the buffer. The rest of it is fine. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: second. TRUSTEE KING: All in favor? ALL AYES. Page 32 OCTMIN-Final MR. HERMAN: Thank you. TRUSTEE KING: Rob, do you want to send us a new drawing? MR. HERMAN: Yes, I'll submit three copies. TRUSTEE KING: Great, thank you. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Jim, I wanted to just go back to when I was doing Eve MacSweeney. We neglected to close the hearing. I want to make a motion to close the hearing for Eve MacSweeney. D 36 TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Second. TRUSTEE KING: All in favor? ALL AYES. TRUSTEE KING: Five has been postponed. we'll go into wetland permits. One has been postponed. COASTAL EROSION AND WETLAND PERMITS TRUSTEE BERGEN: Under wetland permits, number two, Stepan Minakyan requests a wetland permit to reconstruct the beach access stairs. Located: 2375 Soundview Avenue, Mattituck. IS there anybody here to speak on behalf of this application? MR. TANAL: Yes, sir. My name is vahan Tanal. I'm Mr. Minakyan's son-in-law. He can't be here. He has some high blood pressure problems, so I'm representing him. I think the application is clear. I would be happy to answer any questions you may have. TRUSTEE BERGEN: We have a couple of questions for you before we get to that. The CAC resolved to support the application with the condition of a plan stamped by an engineer. It was found inconsistent in the LWRP and part of that is because the decks are larger than what we allowed, and the setback of 100 feet from the water. NOw, this is an application, excuse me, this is a site that we went out and visited once before. we told you our concerns regarding what you had constructed there. YOU had stated that you were reconstructing beach access stairs. It's our opinion that there were not beach access theirs there. We also looked up aerial photographs from 2001 to show no stairs there. so we were concerned that you had started constructing new stairs and that the stairs, as you constructed them, were outside the parameters that we approved. And we had asked you to please come back with a new plan showing this modified in some way. It doesn't look to me like you modified anything. But please correct me if I'm wrong. You still have the larger than we approved decks, or landings, sorry. They are still, and correct me if I'm wrong, there still are small bulkheads, retaining walls under the stairs that page 33 OCTMIN-Final were put in. There was still drainage issues we didn't want to see that are still there. Has any of this been amended to what we that we said talked about D 37 before? MR. TANAL: well, first of all, there are no retalnlng walls. what there are is borders that provide benches under the stairs. They are by no means retaining walls. TRUSTEE KING: In my opinion they are retaining walls. TRUSTEE BERGEN: In our opinion they are retaining walls. MR. TANAL: well, I'm a civil engineer and I'm registered in the State of New York as a professional engineer and I can show you adjoining retaining walls, those are retaining walls that our neighbors have. what we have is a 4x8 board that is backed by two poles and we put some gravel behind it so that it drains properly. TRUSTEE KING: Was there any excavation done to install those? MR. TANAL: There was no excavation. We put in about six cubic yards of gravel behind those boards so that the water drains freely and it doesn't saturate the soil, which is the cause of the constant erosion that we have experienced over 30 years. we have those stairs, as I mentioned before, over 30 years ago, we built those, every year we have to reconstruct. In 1997, we obtained the permit to replace them. we did not replace them properly. We gave up on it. NOw, suddenly, my son is 20-years old, wanted to have access to the beach, so we went back to the permit and what we did is only one landing, based on your comments, we took out the other two landings that was in the permit. The permit said three landin9s. we only have one landing. However, it's larger than what the permit allowed. But overall, the structure is much less, and I did the calculation, about 240 square feet less than what the permit allowed. Because instead of four-feet wide staircase, we built three-feet wide staircase. And this is nothing but access to our own beach. It's been there for over 30 years and I have photographs and I showed you last time that my father-in-law built himself with his own hands, 30 years ago, and we replaced every year. This is existing stairs that go down to the beach and it's for our own use and it's very properly designed and constructed to retain the stability of that bluff. I'm a geo-technical engineer and I run the ports and marine division of a very large consulting firm. The coastal engineers work in my group and thlS is what we do page 34 OCTMIN-Final o 38 for our living. And we are committed to sustainable design and to environmental protection. And this is a very professionally done job. And I'm willing to stamp with my own PE license and my own PE. There is nothing better that we would like to maintain the stability more than anybody else on earth. This is our own property that we have been there over 30 years. I teach this thin~ in columbia university. I'm adjunct professor. This 1S what I teach. TRUSTEE BERGEN: we are not questioning your credentials. MR. TANAL: I know. But you are saying it's a retaining wall, and it's not. I know what a retaining wall is. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Regardless of what it is called, it was a structure that was put down without permission. And that's the issue. MR. TANAL: I agree with that. I agree with that. The issue in 1997, we have a permit that expired. We made a mistake. I agree with that and I apologize for that. But what we are building is very environmentally sustainable and it protects the bluff. That's what I'm saying. This is what our common goals are. Isn't that our common goal? TRUSTEE DOHERTY: AS we spoke in the field, we said was the structure, was too much, and we wanted you make changes and submit those changes and we would them. And you didn't make any of those changes. MR. TANAL: What changes would you like me to make? TRUSTEE DOHERTY: First of all, the landings are too large. The deck on the bottom MR. TANAL: This is not -- TRUSTEE KING: Excuse me, sir. into a debate. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: I'm trying to answer your question. I know you reduced the landing from the original permit but the landing you have is still bigger than what we would approve. The deck, if you will, on the beach side, right on the bulkhead, we asked you to reduce that because we didn't want that coverage. That coverage was too large. I don't know what coverage that is, I don't have the file in front of me. YOU didn't reduce those. MR. TANAL: This is an amendment. It's on the backfill of the bulkhead. It's not on natural ground. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: I understand that. But this is what we asked for this to review we don't want this to turn page 35 OCTMIN-Final o 39 MR. TANAL: we can reduce the size. we didn't build anything there. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: well, we need to see revised plans reducing and -- MR. TANAL: I have not heard you say we should reduce the bulkhead. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: when we met you in the field, we discussed that. MR. TANAL: We did, yes. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: And I said I didn't want to see it that big. It covered too much. MR. TANAL: But one of the members said they didn't have a problem with it. TRUSTEE KING: This was the approved plan from 1997, which you evidently didn't build. Do you have a DEC violation on this? MR. TANAL: well, we got call from DEC to meet with them. TRUSTEE KING: Do you have to go to a compliance hearing on this? MR. TANAL: I have to meet with them, yes. TRUSTEE KING: so obviously there is a problem here. MR. TANAL: well, they came and they ask me to meet with them. That's correct. MR. JOHNSTON: That's what I call a problem. TRUSTEE KING: Did they issue you a violation; notice of violation? MR. TANAL: violation, yes. MR. JOHNSTON: That's what you call a problem MR. TANAL: problem, yes, I have a problem. Yes. Correct. TRUSTEE KING: We also have a problem in issuing something that another agency is going to disallow. MR. TANAL: well, I don't know if they would disallow or not because I'm willing to explain what we are doing and how this is in compliance with the '97 permit. TRUSTEE KING: I think we should table this until this is straightened out a little bit, or if he wants to submit a set of plans, to what we want -- okay, I'll go with that. TRUSTEE BERGEN: IS there anybody else who would like to speak on behalf of this application? (NO response.) Not seeing anybody rushing to the microphone. MR. TANAL: well, my wife would like to speak. Does that count? page 36 OCTMIN-Final D 40 TRUSTEE BERGEN: NO. Then I'll make a motion to close this public hearing. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Second. TRUSTEE BERGEN: All in favor? ALL AYES. MR. TANAL: what am I supposed to do? MR. JOHNSTON: Sit down. TRUSTEE BERGEN: We are not done. I would like to make a motion to deny this Wetland Permit without prejudice. DO I hear a second? TRUSTEE KING: second. TRUSTEE BERGEN: All in favor? ALL AYES. TRUSTEE BERGEN: opposed? (None). TRUSTEE KING: Thank you. MR. TANAL: IS there a recourse to this? TRUSTEE KING: You can resubmit a new application. MR. TANAL: You tell me what I should resubmit. what would be acceptable to the board? TRUSTEE BERGEN: I would suggest you call the office and one of the trustees will get in touch with you to go over once a~ain what we talked about tonight and what talked about ln the field so as not to take up additional time from everybody else that is here tonight. TRUSTEE DICKERSON: Eugene and Maryann Krupski request a Wetland permit to clean up and restore the existing pond to include the removal of lilies one tree, brush and poison ivy, and relocate the driveway. Located: 2230 Soundview Avenue, southold. would anyone like to speak to this application? MR. KRUPSKI: I would like to address the board. Eugene Krupski. Members of the board, first of all, there is an error. It should be Mattituck, not Southold. TRUSTEE BERGEN: you're right. TRUSTEE KING: we went to Mattituck, though. MR. KRUPSKI: what we want to do is basically restore the pond to what it used to be. My dad used to have fish in the pond. It used to be clear all around it. I used to ice skate on the pond. Um, right now it's been overgrown and everything and I cleared out a lot of the weeds and everything. There used to be trees growing around it. A lot of trees have already fallen down into the pond. It's overgrown with lilies or lotuses it's basically choking out what water is already there and what I want to try to do is clean the pond, restore it, put the water D 41 back in be able So and able to restock it to use it, and myself. it's just basically, I page 37 with fish and my children want to clean up it up and OCTMIN-Final restore it to what it used to be. TRUSTEE DICKERSON: Thank you. Anyone else here who would like to speak? MR. GORDON: Harold Gordon. My property also goes into the pond. Are we just going to talk about the lotus now, cleaning up the pond and then the driveway afterwards? It's also for the driveway? TRUSTEE DICKERSON: It's also part of the same. MR. KRUPSKI: We also want to move the driveway closer, because we have 100 feet now. TRUSTEE KING: we can address both issues. MR. GORDON: I understand that you are supposed to be 100 feet from a wetland. And-- TRUSTEE KING: Excuse me. On driveways? MR. GORDON: I don't know about the driveway. well, I thought for construction. TRUSTEE KING: I believe, I think in the code it's within 50 feet. I think 50 feet is the minimum for driveway. we can look it up. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: our jurisdiction is within 100 feet. But we can approve something to be within that hundred feet. It doesn't mean you can't do anything, it just means you have to apply to us. MR. GORDON: well, I want to say something about the pond, that it is a live pond. I believe it's fed primarily from runoff and because I know, I have been there over 20 years, and at one point I could walk across the pond because it was dry during the drought period. There is water in the pond right now. It's filled to the top, and there are fish in the pond. There are turtles in the pond. There are frogs in the pond. There are birds in the pond. It is a very live and healthy pond. I believe there is duckry in the pond. so I'm concerned about the driveway being so close to the pond, especially for gas and oil dripp,ngs from vehicles going up and down the driveway so close to the house, you know, not only their own cars which are probably maintained very well but delivery trucks and oil trucks and other trucks going up to their house. And also in the winter ,f he has to salt the driveway to melt the ice, I would I believe it would o 42 probably leach into the pond. Also if he has to regrade the land to make it higher, it may, the way the land goes, it slopes that way, so when the pond does get filled up with runoff water, the water goes back, that way, I don't know if you are aware of it. But your road, if it's 50 feet, will probably get flooded all the time. So he may have to regrade it, which will force the water back that way. And I know that when the pond, the water page 38 OCTMIN-Final in the pond gets to a certain level I get, the water table rises and I get water in my cellar now. So it may be even worse if more water is forced into the pond. TRUSTEE DICKERSON: So your concern is the driveway and the pond? or mostly the runoff? MR. GORDON: Both. And my notes to you that you have up there. TRUSTEE DICKERSON: Right. MR. GORDON: As far as getting rid of the lotus, I don't know how you would get rid of them short of herbicide, and if you do herbicide it will destroy everything in that pond. so, as far as I'm concerned he could dig them out, have them dug out or cut down on his side. They are very beautiful and sort of awesome. They do grew out of the water. They don't lay on top of the water. That's why lotus is regarding as purity because it's untouched by the water. And I think the pond has a clay lining, that's what the previous owner told us, and if you have to get a bulldozer in there or something it may disturb that lining, I don't know. so I was concerned about that and whatever else I said there. I guess that's it. TRUSTEE DICKERSON: Thank you. MS. KRUPSKI: I'm Maryann Krupski. I had someone coming from the water yesterday and they told me as long as there is 50 feet of buffer of grass you could put anything around it. TRUSTEE BERGEN: Address the board, please. Thank you. MS. KRUPSKI: You need to be 50 feet. This is what they gave me. (Handing.) TRUSTEE DICKERSON: could we have a copy for the file? MS. KRUPSKI: Yes. There two pages, but the 50 feet is what I was talking about. I'm not good speaking in front of that microphone. I feel comfortable up here. TRUSTEE DICKERSON: we have some concerns ourselves. Are you finished with your comments? D 43 MS. KRUPSKI: okay. so your concerns. TRUSTEE DICKERSON: Do you have more to add to your letter? MR. GORDON: It's not like it's the only place to put their driveway. They have hundreds of feet. TRUSTEE DICKERSON: okay, the concerns we have. we have a couple. First of all, the LWRP is -- Mark Terry, our LWRP coordinator, states that there is insufficient information to make a consistency determination and I believe he's looking for further information. And we also, you were given a violation? MS. KRUPSKI: Yes. TRUSTEE DICKERSON: okay, we as a board don't address page 39 OCTMIN-Final applications when there is an outstanding violation, however, I do see your court date was october 13 MS. KRUPSKI: Right. we extended it today. That's what we were recommended to do. We were recommended MR. KRUPSKI: I had to extend it. My mom passed away about a week ago. I was unable to attend. TRUSTEE DICKERSON: That's fine MS. KRUPSKI: That's the reason. TRUSTEE DICKERSON: It's just that if you had already been there and there was a resolution to that, we might be able to address it tonight. But because it has not been addressed and because we have an incomplete report from LWRP, this will have to be tabled tonight. DO you have a question? TRUSTEE KING: NO. The one question about the property. Is the property actually owned by two different people? MS. KRUPSKI: Three, I believe. MR. KRUPSKI: The majority of the pond -- MR. GORDON: How do you draw a line through the water? TRUSTEE KING: We've done it. MR. GORDON: HOw? TRUSTEE KING: Going back in history, we had disputes over a pond. Two people claimed ownership. They built a berm right through the middle of the pond and separated it MR. KRUPSKI: Actually my grandfather du~ that pond out, probably a good hundred years ago, and lt is owned a little bit by yourself. MR. GORDON: I own 30, 40 feet. MR. KRUPSKI: And Roger Robinson owns a small piece and the majority is owned by me. I just also want to address the 50 feet issue of the D 44 pond. we had it set for 100 feet. 50 feet, I think, is more than sufficient. It is still a large distance away from the pond. So I don't think anything would affect it. And also I want to address the lotus situation. Right now, like I said, the water is being choked out of the pond, um, it has overtaken, they were planted there so it's not a natural plant that has grown in the pond. Somebody has brought it there and planted it there and it has overtaken the pond. I think if anything it's killing the fish. TRUSTEE DICKERSON: DO you understand we have those two issues that have to be taken care of before we can address this? So this will be tabled tonight and addressed in November. It will come back up on our agenda in November. MR. KRUPSKI: So there is nothing I could do regarding my driveway? I'm in the process of buildin~ my house. TRUSTEE BERGEN: Not until the violation lS resolved. page 40 OCTMIN-Final TRUSTEE DOHERTY: The court case has to be resolved before we act on this. MS. KRUPSKI: The court date has to be in December. we still can't put a driveway to get to our house? TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Not within the hundred feet. MS. KRUPSKI: How are we supposed to get to our house? TRUSTEE BERGEN: Isn't there a driveway in your original plans? TRUSTEE DOHERTY: MS. KRUPSKI: NO. they are ruining farmland. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: I think what we need to do is see a survey. Because I was under the impression that your land went all the way over and there was a driveway existing already. MR. KRUPSKI: There is no driveway. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Because the survey is not clear and I would personally like the see the survey of the pond, too, how much of the pond you own, because we can't give you permission to clear part of the pond that is not yours. It has to be -- can we separate the driveway from the pond? IS the violation for clearing? MR. KRUPSKI: The violation for clearing. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: For clearing around the pond. TRUSTEE DICKERSON: If they separated it and came in with Isn't there a driveway now? Everyone is driving over our the farmland and putting ruts ~rass and 1nto the o 45 an application in November for a driveway, you might be able to get your driveway before we clear up the other issues. MS. KRUPSKI: Also we have a tree that has fallen into the pond. TRUSTEE DICKERSON: well, we are looking at the emergency here as part of your driveway. The application is for clearing the pond and driveway. They say they have no way to get to the house they are building and the court date is not until December. Could they come in and apply for a driveway application that we would address in November to get them the driveway? TRUSTEE KING: There is some sort of driveway there now. MS. KRUPSKI: There isn't. There is no driveway. we are just -- everyone -- TRUSTEE DOHERTY: There was of a driveway MS. KRUPSKI: It's not really a driveway. not really a driveway. It's a dirt road making. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Over here. MS. KRUPSKI: That was there before. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: IS the dirt road we saw on your page 41 alon~ here. It 1S, but it's that everyone is OCTMIN-Final property? MS. KRUPSKI: Yes TRUSTEE KING: IS it on the survey? MS. KRUPSKI: Yes. Not as a dirt road, no. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: They are saying they want to stop using this and start this driveway. MS. KRUPSKI: Because they are ruining the grass. MR. KRUPSKI: They are going through the field now. TRUSTEE KING: I didn't know if the existing driveway you have going up there now is something you had to put in because of the subdivision or plann1ng Board made you put it there. MS. KRUPSKI: No. The people that are building the house are making it themselves. MR. KRUPSKI: They are making us to go back to them until we get approval. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: so they would have to -- SECRETARY STANDISH: There is the original permit from this board for the driveway. There 1S hay bales that belong to the driveway in the file. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: DO you remember where the original o 46 driveway was? MR. KRUPSKI: It was 100 TRUSTEE DICKERSON: It's MS. KRUPSKI: But we are driveways. TRUSTEE DICKERSON: so you have a wetland permit 2005 to install permit driveway, survey done by John Metzger. Last dated July 23, 2005. TRUSTEE KING: So they want to amend that permit. TRUSTEE BERGEN: So you do have a driveway. TRUSTEE KING: I don't see why not. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: So you can submit a driveway for next month and get your, for your driveway only, amendment to that permit. TRUSTEE KING: what do you want do is come in and amend that permit for the driveway, the hundred feet, you want to amend that and change that dimension to 50 feet on that permit MS. KRUPSKI: we can't do it until November? TRUSTEE DOHERTY: NO, because you have to apply for it MS. KRUPSKI: we have to apply for another permit. TRUSTEE KING: You have the permit on the driveway. It's 100 feet. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: For an amendment, you don't have to notify the neighbors and all that. MR. KRUPSKI: So you just come in here -- TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Lauren can tell you what you need to do. TRUSTEE DICKERSON: It's a less painful process and you Page 42 feet away. consistent. going to do I saw that. it twice, make two OCTMIN-Final can get your driveway. Then we can address the pond issues after your court date and after -- MS. KRUPSKI: we want to get the septic put in there and he's goin~ to, because when he brings the machinery he can't do 1t twice. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Our next meeting is set for November 15. That's the earliest we have. TRUSTEE DICKERSON: So you have to find out from Lauren when you have to have the application. MS. KRUPSKI: what happens if we need to have it before then for the septic. It sounds ridiculous just to bring the bulldozers -- TRUSTEE DOHERTY: we have to go through our process and if you choose to do it without the amendment you'll get another violation MS. KRUPSKI: NO, no. D 47 TRUSTEE DICKERSON: we are trying to help out by give you the driveway you need more than cleaning the lotus leaves MS. KRUPSKI: No, I'm not worried about that. TRUSTEE KING: we are totally consistent with the violation issue. NOW we are moving forward with the violation pending TRUSTEE DICKERSON: That's why I asked. That's what my question was. Because they are sayin~ they need this driveway and they are taking part of 1t but you are holding -- TRUSTEE BERGEN: what I'm hearin~ is there was a driveway approved originally. So there 1S a driveway. I'm hearing the applicant say there is no driveway. But there was an approved driveway. so there is a driveway that was approved. YOU want to change that to another location. MR. KRUPSKI: we want to change is and move it closer than 100 feet. TRUSTEE BERGEN: Correct. what I heard you say the hardship was that you have no driveway. But there is in fact a driveway that was approved. There is a driveway. YOU just would prefer the driveway be in a different spot, correct? MR. KRUPSKI: Yes. The driveway is not there yet, technically. TRUSTEE BERGEN: But it was approved to go in. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: So I don't see it to be an emer~ency because they have approval of access already. L1ke Dave just said. MS. KRUPSKI: But we are really not using the access. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: we gave you approval of access and if you want to make an amendment you can apply for an amendment of that driveway. But we can't act on anything page 43 OCTMIN-Final until the violation is cleared up. And we can't act on anything tonight. MS. KRUPSKI: But the violation is not going to be done unti 1 December. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: We have no control of that. TRUSTEE BERGEN: we did not commit the violation. MS. KRUPSKI: we have no control over our property. we have no rights on our property. TRUSTEE DICKERSON: I'll make a motion to table. Is there a second? TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Second. o 48 TRUSTEE DICKERSON: All in favor? ALL AYES. Boulevard planning on behalf of Robert and Susan Somerville requests a wetland permit to construct a second-story addition to the rear of dwelling and deck at rear of dwelling. Located: 595 oakland Court, southold. Is it oakland? MR. LEHNERT: Oakwood Drive. 595 oakwood Drive. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Yes. 595 Oakwood Drive, in Southold. The whole board looked at this. We had no problem with the addition itself. we just had a couple of questions. We would like to see a ten-foot non-turf buffer landward of the revegetation and also, they have a wired fence. we would like to see that removed. That's not permitted under our wetland code. MR. LEHNERT: So remove the wire fence. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Yes. TRUSTEE BERGEN: And for clarity, it's the wire fence that's along the waterfront. There were several wire fences there MR. LEHNERT: That's what I figured. Alo~g ~he water. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: And peggy was just mentlonlng the jet-ski float that we see there. The board is going to be reviewing that type of structure and make a determination if that is allowed. so at this point we are not going to, we have not made a determination on that because there are floats like that in other places. The CAC supports this application with the condition that a 20-foot non-turf buffer, impervious deck and the deck is not 100 feet of wetlands. MR. LEHNERT: 20 feet or ten? TRUSTEE DOHERTY: This is CAC comments. And the LWRP found it to be inconsistent for the reason of the 100-foot setback. It says plan didn't show topography or drywells to control surface runoff. IS there any other comment for or against this application? (No response.) Any comment from the board? page 44 OCTMIN-Final TRUSTEE BERGEN: I would recommend that we make sure -- TRUSTEE KING: why was it inconsistent with LWRP? TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Because of the hundred feet and because no topo. TRUSTEE BERGEN: May I just recommend the installation of gutters, downspouts and drywells to mitigate the D 49 inconsistency with LWRP? MR. LEHNERT: Yes, we'll show it on the plan. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Any other comments? (NO response.) I'll make a motion to close the hearing. TRUSTEE DICKERSON: Second. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: All in favor? ALL AYES. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: I'll make a motion to approve the application of Boulevard planning on behalf of Robert and Susan Somerville for a Wetland permit to construct second story addition to rear of dwelling with a condition of ten-foot, non-turf buffer from the waters edge -- ten-foot, non-turf buffer landward of the vegetation and the wire fence that is along the water to be removed and leaders and gutters into drywells. TRUSTEE BERGEN: Second. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: All in favor? ALL AYES. TRUSTEE KING: Number five. samuels & steelman Architects on behalf of Doug Dey requests a wetland permit to connect the existing beach house with new residence with new undergound tunnel. Located: 1775 paradise Point Road, Southold. Anyone here to speak to behalf of this application? MR. SAMUELS: My name is Tom samuels. Really I'm here to answer questions, but I can add that in some ways it's a minor thing. It's a little odd, I admit. The owner is simply interested in accessing beach level from his basement. It is behind the pre-existing structure. From a zoning standpoint, it's relatively simple. From your standpoint, it mayor may not be. We are trying to preserve the existing structure pretty much in tact although we will probably reshape it a little it. otherwise, leave it largely intact. There is a little plumbing in it now. we are not married to that but I mean effectively that structure is there and we are simply trying to connect underground. He's building a brand new house, as you know saw when you visited; very significant house. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Do you know what that plumbing is connected to? Does it go to the beach or are there actually drywells there? MR. SAMUELS: I'm not sure. It's a shower, so it's not sanitary in the sense of toilets. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: I understand that. page 45 OCTMIN-Final TRUSTEE KING: There is an orange and gray pipe going out, D 50 I don't know where they are going. MR. SAMUELS: It probably goes -- I can't tell that either, I'm afraid. It's probably a drywell. At the most. Like I said, they are not interested in the showers. The showers are not of interest to them. They are building a pool on the other side of the house with a pool house. He doesn't care about the showers. TRUSTEE KING: Like I said it just -- TRUSTEE DICKERSON: Does the tunnel go level? MR. SAMUELS: It's level. It's effectively level. It may be about a foot difference, but effectively level. TRUSTEE KING: CAC didn't make an inspection. It was found inconsistent with the LWRP. MR. SAMUELS: Doesn't somehow surprise me. TRUSTEE KING: If it's underground, I don't understand what possible impact it could have on anything. proposed distance of underground tunnel is 100 feet. The applicant has not proved the underground tunnel was designed to avoid damage from flooding and erosion. MR. SAMUELS: well, I mean, there are, I think there are some, there is some hardening on the shoreline. We are above that. Flooding would have to, the floor elevation is above eight feet. You would need some significant flooding above flood plane elevation. TRUSTEE KING: My feeling is if it's underground it has absolutely no impact to the environment. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: It's a new house being constructed around it already. TRUSTEE KING: The house is there. It's an underground tunnel. Basement level. TRUSTEE BERGEN: It's being connected to an existing structure, so I would agree. TRUSTEE DICKERSON: IS there a need for -- that's why I asked if it was goin~ on an angle. TRUSTEE KING: NO, it s goin~ straight into the building. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: And there lS a buffer between it. TRUSTEE KING: I don't see how it has any impact. There will be a door at the entrance of this tunnel, correct MR. SAMUELS: Yes. TRUSTEE BERGEN: That will in essence prevent any water in a natural flood from coming into the tunnel. MR. SAMUELS: It would need to be a heck of a flood. TRUSTEE BERGEN: I understand that. I'm trying to address the inconsistency due to concern about flooding with a Page 46 OCTMIN-Final D 51 door of sufficient size and quality to prevent that from happening, that would address this particular inconsistency. MR. SAMUELS: Right. And that door, from a security standpoint, that has to be a lockable door anyway because he didn't want his basement invaded from the beach. we haven't specified a door. It will be potentially a metal door, I'm sure. TRUSTEE BERGEN: That's what I would recommend. TRUSTEE KING: The primary reason it's within 100 feet. please require the applicant amend the application to meet the above policy. Put a tunnel out on the road, maybe. LWRP, come on. I make a motion to close the hearing. TRUSTEE DICKERSON: Second. TRUSTEE KING: All in favor. ALL AYES. TRUSTEE KING: Motion to approve the application as submitted. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: second. TRUSTEE KING: All in favor? ALL AYES. MR. SAMUELS: Thank you, have a nice evening. TRUSTEE BERGEN: Number seven. JMO Environmental Consulting on behalf of Michael and Beth Neumann requests a wetland permit to demolish the existing single-family dwelling, porch, garage and outhouse, to pump out and remove existing sanitary system. Construct a new sin~le-family dwelling, sanitary system, porches, decks, patlos, pool, detached garage and driveway. Located: 3329 Grand Avenue, Mattituck. IS there anybody here to speak either for or against this application? MR. JUST: Good evening Glenn Just, JMO Consultants. we also have the architect and the contractor here. Mrs. Neumann could not be here, she is under doctor's care. Hopefully we'll be able LO answer any quesLions you have. TRUSTEE BERGEN: LWRP found this inconsistent because of the setback of 100 feet is not met. I do not see a recommendation from the CAC in here. Was there a recommendation on this, Don? MR. WILDER: NO, there was not. TRUSTEE KING: There is a letter from the neighbor, I think. TRUSTEE BERGEN: IS there a letter from the neighbor which page 47 OCTMIN-Final o 52 is short, so I'll read it. This is from Martin Krauss Trust. Our only concern is the setback of the proposed pool. It appears to be very close to our boundary. we realize this would not be governed by the environmental review but we want to go on record as to our concern. Now, the board went out and looked at this and already there has been some mitigation done with hay bales and silt screen, which was good, to help with the runoff. obviously we are concerned about that, to make sure that is addressed in the construction. The inconsistency based on the 100-foot setback, we were curious or we were wondering if there was any opportunity to set this residence back a little further than what it is. Right now, the corner of the porch is 60 feet from the deslgnated wetlands on this survey; september 20, looks like, revised survey. It was turned into our office september 25. We were just curious if there was any opportunity to move the structure back a little more to address the inconsistency from the LWRP. TRUSTEE KING: This is where things were. (Indicating.) If we could just slide that back, maybe if it was tilted to get further away from the property line, I don't know. TRUSTEE BERGEN: And, again, the suggestion is, just to repeat what was just stated, is there an opportunity to set this structure back a little bit more to address the LWRP inconsistency and/or maybe address the problem the neighbor had with the pool. I'm only asking the applicant this. MR. JUST: This is Fred webber, the architect. Starting with the pool, Fred? TRUSTEE BERGEN: Step back to the microphone, please. Thank you. MR. WEBBER: Hi, my name is Fred webber, I'm the architect for the project. Just as a convenience, I had colored a site plan in so you could see where the existing house was and where the proposed house is. That's what I was just trying to put in front of you. TRUSTEE BERGEN: That's exactly as designated on the plans we have. MR. WEBBER: AS you are looking at it, the red and the orange is the existing. The red being the house, the orange being the porch. And then the green being, the dark green being the body of the house and the llght o 53 page 48 OCTMIN-Final green being the porch and the terrace. So in effect, the body of the house is actually just about in line with the body of the existing back of the house. I guess it's the porch and terrace, I guess, that are the only things that are not in back of the existing house. TRUSTEE BERGEN: Here are some of my fellow trustees offering suggestions, if you would like to do so. TRUSTEE DICKERSON: we are looking at moving it back. My concern is the elevation and your building envelope which to get to that elevation you'll have a tremendous amount of erosion there. My concern would be moving both structures back as far as possible on that property. I think the recommendation of the board is to move it back ten feet. TRUSTEE BERGEN: we had discussed the other day the opportunity to move the proposed structure back, or landward ten additional feet. The pool is presently 60 feet off the wetlands and our recommendations are 50. So it meets our recommendations. Again, we are just addressing what the neighbor had talked about with the pool to see if there is any opportunity to change the location of that pool or amend it one way or another, or even angling it, possibly. If you step up for a moment, I could show you. MR. WEBBER: I think they are open to move the pool back, angling it. TRUSTEE BERGEN: If you angle, if it was angled like that, so to speak, this corner moves away from the neighbor's property slightly. It doesn't change the distance from the water at all and doesn't change -- MR. WEBBER: That's not a problem at all. MR. JUST: We also thought putting the backwash filter a minimum of 100 feet back from the wetlands, that would help mitigate it, too. Because that's with the algaecides and all other chemicals. TRUSTEE BERGEN: And then what about the opportunity to move the structure back ten feet? That's what I seem to be hearing from the board here. Again, to address the LWRP inconsistency, to bring it into consistency. MR. JUST: The proposed house is going to be completely landward of the existing house. That's one thing that seems to be a little confusing. TRUSTEE DICKERSON: The house. Not the porch. D 54 MR. JUST: we are just talking about the dwelling, that's all. TRUSTEE BERGEN: Then is there an opportunity, possibly, to decrease the size of the terrace, to bring that back so that in essence we move the project back ten feet? page 49 OCTMIN-Final MR. WEBBER: I think we could do that. TRUSTEE KING: I think moving everything behind the original house, I believe, lS enough for us to deem it being consistent. TRUSTEE BERGEN: Are you talking about -- what you are talking about is to either remove the entire structure or remove the porch and terrace completely. And I don't think that's what the applicants are saying. MR. JUST: I think moving the porch and terrace would be at least landward of the existing structure. TRUSTEE BERGEN: That's fine. If that's what you are willing to do. MR. JUST: I think that's what it shows on the plan, doesn't it? TRUSTEE BERGEN: NO. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: why don't we that back so it's in front of cut back? we want ten feet. five feet? MR. WEBBER: That's good TRUSTEE DOHERTY: I'm just thinking out loud. IS that okay with everyone? TRUSTEE BERGEN: I would be willing to compromise if it helps address the inconsistency issue. The corner of the proposed porch is 60. It would bring back to 65. MR. BURGER: we are looking to have a basement window there to look out toward the water. TRUSTEE BERGEN: You would still be able to do that. MR. BURGER: It would. Five feet would definitely work without a problem. TRUSTEE BERGEN: They could either move the whole MR. WEBBER: They could move the whole house back five feet. MR. BURGER: The whole house. MR. WEBBER: Everything back five feet. TRUSTEE BERGEN: Everything within the green footprint. MR. WEBBER: Correct. TRUSTEE BERGEN: It's hard to tell. It would bring it back. It would be very close. It's 65 feet. go for a compromise and cut the existing house but it's why don't we compromise o 55 MR. JUST: well, the proposed terrace and stuff now at the closest part is 70 feet. If you look at this. I scaled it off this way. TRUSTEE BERGEN: We have here MR. JUST: what I have done is include the proposed terrace. TRUSTEE BERGEN: Are you saying the distance to there is 70 feet? MR. JUST: From the wetland. If we move it back, it's 75 feet for the terrace and the porch; 85 for that porch and page 50 OCTMIN-Final it would, you know, more than address the 75 foot setback. TRUSTEE BERGEN: I'm comfortable with that. MR. JUST: And also for mitigation remove and abandon the existing septic system which is right on top of the wetlands. And the new septic system, probably 150 feet back. MR. WEBBER: I think it's 130 feet back. TRUSTEE BERGEN: okay. TRUSTEE KING: And the drywell is out of our jurisdiction, too, if you put it that far back. MR. JUST: Correct. And I think Mr. webber's plans include leaders and gutters for the drywell, as the trustees normally require. TRUSTEE BERGEN: Are there any other comments that anybody has? (NO response.) If not, I'll make a motion to close this public hearing. TRUSTEE DICKERSON: second. TRUSTEE BERGEN: All in favor? ALL AYES. TRUSTEE BERGEN: I would like to -- TRUSTEE KING: Just one comment. The previous owner on this did some clearing, had a violation. They paid a fine to DEC, they paid a fine to the town. AS far as I know, everything has been resolved. Mr. Burger put a line of hay bales in there, thankfully before the eight inches of rain we had. Just to get it on the record that all those problems were revolved. MR. JUST: It really helped. The soil came up half the height of the hay bales. TRUSTEE DICKERSON: will there be replanting done there after the clearing? MR. JUST: I think we'll look at it passively first to see what nature brings back. o 56 TRUSTEE DICKERSON: There is a plan to let it grow back? MR. JUST: There is definitely a plan to let it grow back. TRUSTEE KING: We'll have a 50-foot buffer, anyway, from the wetlands. 50-foot, non-disturbed buffer. MR. JOHNSTON: Jim, was Mr. Burger reimbursed for the hay bales, as you had suggested? TRUSTEE KING: I don't know. MR. BURGER: It's in the process. TRUSTEE KING: Is that a yes? MR. BURGER: I haven't seen it. I was told the check is in the mail. MS. MOORE: For the record, I represent the parties. we have been waiting for, I think, this permit to be resolved and we already agreed to it but we have to get page 51 OCTMIN-Final everybody to sign off on it first. I'm waiting for the Neumann's to sign off on that. MR. JOHNSTON: Mr. Burger, is it less than $2,000 for the hay bales? MR. BURGER: Yes, it was $1,500, and depending on the outcome of tonight's hearing it was going to be released tomorrow. MR. JOHNSTON: So you are charging $1,500 for hay bales and $500 for aggravation? MS. MOORE: No, no. $1,500 TRUSTEE BERGEN: If I could bring this back, folks. I believe we had a motion to close the public hearing and a second. All in favor? ALL AYES. I would like to make a motion to approve JMO Environmental consultin9 on behalf of Michael and Beth Neumann with the follow1n9 stipulations: one, that we would llke to move the house back approximately, house and terrace and proposed porch back approximately five feet. In doing so we would deem this action to be consistent with LWRP; the inclusion of a 50-foot, non-turf buffer, non-disturbance area down from the water front landward and the opportunity to move the pool so that the pool runs parallel to the property line, so it will come now at an angle. And please remember to include gutters and drywells on the residence and, again, maintain the hay bales line and silt line during construction. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Before that is seconded, go over the 50-foot buffer. o 57 TRUSTEE BERGEN: Non-disturbance -- sorry. Yes. Non-disturbance buffer. That's my fault. Thank you for catching that. DO I have a second to that motion? TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Second. TRUSTEE BERGEN: All in favor? ALL AYES. TRUSTEE KING: Before you go, did you need anything from DEC? MR. JUST: They'll be grantin9 an NJ. We are just about -- as everyone knows, southold 1S a little backed up in DEC staff, but it's in for typing. TRUSTEE DICKERSON: John Bertani Builder, Inc., on behalf of Linda Sanford requests a wetland permit for the existin9 new construction of a single-family dwelling, renovat10n of the existing garage, new in-ground swimming pool, patios and new landscape plan. Located: 780 private Road, #17, southold. would anyone like to speak to this application? MR. BERTANI: John Bertani, here to answer any questions the board may have and also to introduce Mr. Keith Page 52 OCTMIN-Final simpson, landscape architect, if have you any questions. MR. SIMPSON: My name is Keith simpson, I'm the landscape architect. YOU have the planting plan, site plan showing the proposed pool and work around the property. I'm prepared to answer any questions or explain anything, if the board would like. I do have a drawing which shows a lOa-foot setback from the top of the bluff if that is in any way extra help to you. TRUSTEE DICKERSON: we talked about moving pool back. IS that what this is? TRUSTEE BERGEN: we are checking to see that you narrowed the steps that we had met talked about. There were steps goin~ out close to the bluff. you'll be removing those footlngs and moving those steps back. MR. SIMPSON: Yes, I think I know which one those were for. TRUSTEE DICKERSON: IS the planting plan separate MR. SIMPSON: The planting plan is separate. It's in the back. It's number p-1. It's a planting plan of the whole property. Once again, I put a line on that which shows the 100 foot -- TRUSTEE DICKERSON: May I ask you, before I read through all these Latin words that I'm not familiar with, are o 58 these basically native plantings or are they landscape pl anti ngs? MR. SIMPSON: They are a combination. There is bayberry, there's beach plum, there's salt tolerant plants and we done a lot of work on the shore over the years, about 25 years, actually. And so the plants are very carefully selected for the coastal zone. TRUSTEE DICKERSON: That was one of our concerns, that it would not be as much landscaped with oriental, that it would be more native; that you use a mix. MR. SIMPSON: I do use a mix but I try very hard not to use the invasive species. TRUSTEE DICKERSON: No purple loose stripe MR. SIMPSON: NO, and no bittersweet either. I try very hard to not have the ones which absolutely become impossible to control or like the Japanese vines and that, honeysuckles and those are not there at all. TRUSTEE DICKERSON: Any board comments? (No response.) Any comments from the audience? (No response.) we have an inconsistency review from the LWRP: close distance to the swimming pool and related structures; pool decking located within lOa-foot setback of the top of the bluff; minimum setback of 100. LWRP also requires the use of native and drought tolerant vegetation landscaping to minimize irrigation and fertilization. page 53 OCTMIN-Final DO we have a buffer, Don, on the bluff? or there is not even any -- (perusing.) This is not much of a bluff. CAC supports the application with condition there is no lawn on the seaward side. I don't think I see a lawn. MR. SIMPSON: There won't be any lawn on the seaward side of the bluff. TRUSTEE DICKERSON: The lawn is just within that crescent. MR. SIMPSON: That's right. There won't be lawn on the seaward side of the bluff. In fact, even that area is not seaward side of the bluff, of the top of the bluff. TRUSTEE DICKERSON: NO removal of trees over eight inches. These are recommendations from the conservation Advisory Council. All decks on seaward side of the house are pervious and the area on the seaward side of the house is sloped away from the water MR. SIMPSON: Right, it will. once it gets berm, the entire project slopes backwards. drained. So we are not anticipating storm to the top the So it's back drainage D 59 running over the top. Because one of the reasons doing the planting is the bank is really not in as good a shape now as we would like it to be. TRUSTEE DICKERSON: And you addressed our request to move the pool back, and you addressed our request to keep the stairs close to the house at the point we requested? TRUSTEE DOHERTY: It was more like a patio, and we asked you to cut it back and now it's just the stairs coming off the existing patio on the seaward side. TRUSTEE BERGEN: Right. They corrected that. MR. SIMPSON: we addressed, got the corrections and addressed that properly. TRUSTEE DICKERSON: with all of our requests to you, I approve this application -- I have another comment. Were they paying as advised, Lauren? SECRETARY STANDISH: Yes, they did. TRUSTEE DICKERSON: With the pool being moving back, with the planting plan showing a nice balance of native species and the stairs that we asked to be moved closer to the house, the Board of Trustees deems this action to be consistent with the Local Waterfront Revitalization Program. And I just want to make sure there is no one else here that would like to speak to this. (NO response.) If there are no comments from the board, I'll close the public hearing. (NO response.) TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Second. TRUSTEE DICKERSON: All in favor? ALL AYES. I will make a motion to approve the application for Linda sanford for the existing new construction of a single-family dwelling, renovation of the existing page 54 OCTMIN-Final garage, new in-ground swimming pool, patios and new landscaping plan, as per the request of the trustees been approved wlth native species and stairs that have been reduced to make this consistent. 00 I have a second? TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Second. TRUSTEE DICKERSON: All in favor? ALL AYES. MR. BERTANI: Thank you, very much. I appreciate it. what is the setback of the pool? TRUSTEE DOHERTY: It's at 50, I believe TRUSTEE DICKERSON: It looked more than 50 MR. SIMPSON: It's 50 feet now. I understood TRUSTEE DICKERSON: 50 feet from hay bales. Move the pool 50 feet from hay bales o 60 MR. BERTANI: Thank you. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Suffolk Environment Consulting, Inc., on behalf of vincent and Eileen Flaherty request a wetland permit to replace the existing wood decking off the eastern side of the existing dwelling and southwestern section of the existing garage with a stone paver patio; replace the existing wood decking surrounding the existing swimming pool with a stone paver patio; and construct a retalning wall/pool fence around the perimeter. Located at 1775 Inlet Way, Southold. IS there anyone here to speak on behalf of this application? MR. ANDERSON: Suffolk Environmental Consulting for applicant Flaherty. I draw your attention to a site map that we sent to you on the 27th which I think says it all. Essentially what we have is wood patio that surrounds a pool that is located 45 feet from the water which in this case is wetland boundary and that patio will be reconfigured such as to increase setback of 50 feet thereby complying with your statute as it relates to pools. This is a falrly straight forward application. I'm here it answer any questlons you may have. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: The LWRP finds this consistent. MR. ANDERSON: It's a miracle. TRUSTEE BERGEN: Keep going. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: CAC supports the application provided the exis~ence of the dwe11ing be n9 closer than the present lmprovement; patlo lmperVlOUS, pavers are not impervious in their opinion, and there is no turf. That's CAC'S comments. Is there a drywell for the pool on your plans? we would like to see a drywell for the pool. MR. ANDERSON: okay. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: And on the inlet side we would like to Page 55 OCTMIN-Final see that buffer to be increased to 15 feet all the way around. some places it's more than 15 feet, but over on the northern side by the bocci ball court we want to see that increased by 15 feet, and wherever it's not, to just increase it to 15 feet. MR. ANDERSON: perfectly acceptable. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: YOU can do it with the same stuff you have there. Just expand it. That's fine with us. TRUSTEE BERGEN: And to clarify it, that bocci ball court o 61 is within 15 feet. we are not asking you remove the bocci ball court. we are just saying take the buffer to it. I just want to make sure that's on the record. MR. ANDERSON: Right. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Are there any other comments? (NO response.) Comments from the board? (NO response.) I'll make a motion to close this. TRUSTEE DICKERSON: Second. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: I'll make a motion to approve the permit of Suffolk Environmental consulting on behalf of vincent and Eileen Flaherty to request a Wetland permit to replace the existing wood decking off the eastern side of the existing dwelling and southwestern section of the existing garage with a stone paver patio; replace the existing wood decking surrounding the existing swimming pool with a stone paver patio; and construct a retaining wall/pool fence around the perimeter, with the condition that a dry well is placed for the pool and a 15-foot non-turf buffer is maintained on the eastern side. MR. ANDERSON: on the easterly bulkhead. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Thank you TRUSTEE BERGEN: one question. The paver patio, will that be pervious? CAC asked if it could be pervious. MR. ANDERSON: It is pervious and sits on very course sand. TRUSTEE BERGEN: Thank you. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Thank you for clarifying. I have a motion. DO I have a second? TRUSTEE BERGEN: second. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: All in favor? ALL AYES. MR. ANDERSON: Thank you, good night. MR. JOHNSTON: David, no chain saws. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: I make a motion to close the hearing. TRUSTEE DICKERSON: second. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: All in favor? ALL AYES. TRUSTEE KING: Number 11. En-consultants on behalf of Mary VanCott, requests a Wetland permit to remove and replace in-place plus/minus 16 feet and plus/minus 4 foot sections of existing timber bulkhead with vinyl bulkhead; remove and replace In-place plus/minus ten foot and page 56 OCTMIN-Final plus/minus 48 foot sections of eXltlng bulkhead with vinyl bulkhead to be raised 24 inches higher than existing to match elevation of plus/minus 16 feet and plus/minus four foot sections and adjacent bulkhead o 62 (elevation plus/minus 6.5 foot MSL); backfill with approximately 25 cubic yards clean sand fill to be trucked in from an upland source; and construct a 4 foot by 48 foot wood walk. Located: 4080 Wunneweta Road, cutchogue. IS there anyone here to speak on behalf of the application? MR. HERMAN: Rob Herman, En-Consultants on behalf of Mary Vancott. It's a pretty straight forward application. This actually ties into the Avolese bulkhead replacement, the permit for which was extended earlier this evening. If you have any questions, I'm happy to answer them. TRUSTEE KING: Question. can we straighten out that little JOG in that one corner were you meet up with the neighbor? YOU know me, I like straight lines. What's the purpose -- it's only like three feet. If we could just tie right into the other bulkhead, right in line, wouldn't that simplify things? MR. HERMAN: If that 16-foot section were just constructed slightly farther landward to tie into the Avolese structure? TRUSTEE KING: I think it would clean the whole thing up pretty good, you know MR. HERMAN: YOU are not the vancott's, are you? (UNIDENTIFIED VOICE): NO. MR. HERMAN: I mean -- I can ask them about it. TRUSTEE KING: It would simplify the construction. It would cost them a little less money MR. HERMAN: It's a pretty small section. I mean, I can't see why not. I mean, it is going to require, you would have to excavate that bulkhead and you would have to excavate and dredge behind it. I know you ordinarily like to try to straighten these things out. I'm just thinking it might be more trouble, really, than it's worth here. TRUSTEE KING: It will have to be excavated any way. MR. JOHNSTON: Did you already get your DEC permit? MR. HERMAN: Are you kidding? NO. If you want to approve it that way, and I can speak to them about it. I mean I don't want to hold it off. But I just -- TRUSTEE KING: It's not a death wish either, for me. I just think it would be a better job. TRUSTEE DICKERSON: Without the option -- MR. HERMAN: I prefer to have the option, Jim. I don't know if that, that does tie into the bulkhead and dock Page 57 OCTMIN-Final D 63 area for Avolese and I don't know if that serves as a literally bulkhead purpose there for a boat or something. I don't, I just, it wasn't something I contemplated so I'm not sure I'm comfortable just saying okay wi thout -- TRUSTEE KING: We can approve it as submitted with the option or suggestion that it be straightened. MR. HERMAN: Yes, that way I'll speak to them about it and if they say, great idea, wish we had thought of it, then I could give you a revised plan. Let's do that. TRUSTEE KING: We'll do that. Any other comments on the application? (NO response.) Anything from the board? It was found consistent with LWRP. Field notes, you have a ten-foot non-turf buffer. And no mowing behind that ramp. There is a little ramp going down there; behind the sail boat. This is just a note. TRUSTEE BERGEN: We didn't say that. TRUSTEE KING: Then Hilda wrote it in. Ten-foot, non-turf buffer. MR. HERMAN: There is ten-foot walkway. TRUSTEE KING: Ten feet behind ramp, no mow. TRUSTEE OICKERSON: we discussed it but I don't think -- that's what -- we were talking about it. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: She put it under "conditions." MR. HERMAN: what is the ramp you are talking about, Jim? TRUSTEE BERGEN: The old ramp. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: It's vegetated. TRUSTEE DICKERSON: Right below the sail boat. MR. HERMAN: Where it lS sort of deteriorated. TRUSTEE BERGEN: Are you familiar with what this property was? This was James Rambo's headquarters years and years ago and that's where they got all the materials down to the water, down that ramp. MR. HERMAN: That was not used. That's completely vegetated. we are not doing any work over there. TRUSTEE KING: Disregard my last statement. TRUSTEE DICKERSON: we were going to have you remove the pilings but the baccharis is growing right through that. MR. HERMAN: I know what you are talking about because I had seen it on the survey originally and the surveyor depicted it as if it was a ramp and I went back and said, oh, my God, did they build a ramp in the middle of the marsh since I took pictures there? TRUSTEE KING: We do want to see a lO-foot non-turf buffer page 58 OCTMIN-Final o 64 along the disturbed area. MR. HERMAN: okay. TRUSTEE KING: And the Southold Advisory council supported it with the condition of a drainage plan and 30-foot non-turf buffer. That yard is not very big. Do you have 30 feet? MR. HERMAN: I think a ten-foot buffer would be standard for a bulkhead. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: we measured that existing return and figured the buffer back to the existing return. MR. WILDER: 30, with your advisement. TRUSTEE BERGEN: I'm comfortable with ten. MR. HERMAN: I think everyone would like to go in the direction of having everyone get rid of all their lawns and all their yards, but I thlnk we should be consistent with what the board requires for this standard project, which is ten feet. MR. WILDER: Can I address that? TRUSTEE KING: Yes. MR. WILDER: It takes 200 feet to clean the fertilizer and pesticides and so forth. MR. HERMAN: so convince the Town Board to pass legislation that requires everybody who lives on the water to get rid of their yards. If the town supports that and votes all that back to office, we'll start designing things that way. But until that, then I think the board should be consistent with what they've asked for. TRUSTEE KING: Any other comments? (No response.) I'll make a motion to close the hearing. TRUSTEE DICKERSON: Second. TRUSTEE KING: All in favor? ALL AYES. TRUSTEE KING: Motion to approve the application as submitted, with a ten-foot non-turf buffer behind the new construction; with the option and suggestion that, if possible, straighten out that little Jog out to the adjoining bulkhead of the neighbor. That, in my opinion, would make a better job of it. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Second. TRUSTEE KING: All in favor? ALL AYES. TRUSTEE BERGEN: Number 12, En-consultants on behalf of Joann walker requests a wetland permit to remove the existing patio and pergola; construct a two-story and two one-story additions to the existing one-family dwelling; page 59 OCTMIN-Final D 65 construct concrete patio, in-ground swimming pool, hot tub, pool patio, pool fence and outside shower; and install drainage system of drywells. Located at 290 Town Harbor Terrace, 50uthold. IS anyone here to speak on behalf of this application? MR. HERMAN: Rob Herman, En-consultants, on behalf of the applicant Joann walker. The project is as described. I had a little bit of communication with Jill about the possibility of relocating the pool landward of where it is and I think, you know, perhaps some sort of modification would be agreeable, but I did want to address a couple of things and Jill, I apologize, I actually forgot that I wanted to speak about this when I communicated back with you today. This is a project which has received variance approval from the zoning board for structures less than 75-feet from the bulkhead. It's also a project that would be entirely beyond this board's jurisdiction as it existed a year ago. All of the structures are more than 100 feet from wetlands. I think only through a very broad interpretation of a bluff is this application even before you tonight. I think that when the board amended its code to include bluff as part of the wetlands definition, that this project, and I discussed this with Jim already, is not really what you had in mind. This is a slope. There is a change in elevation. But even as you go on the adjacent parcel, to the north or to the northeast, this elevation rolls down pretty quickly to the bay. And I think it is arguable, if the client wanted to take the time and make a big enough stink about it as to whether this application is really being properly heard. NOw, I can't say this for certain, because I'm not sure what the building department interpretation was, but if the building department had been interpreting this as a bluff, all of this would also have required variances for the lOa-foot press the bluff setback, and they didn't require any set variances. so it is possible, although I didn't research it with the building inspector, that this board has determined this to be a bluff while the Building Department did not, which creates sort of o 66 internal problems in and of itself. so, I would just like the board to take that into page 60 OCTMIN-Final consideration, when looking at this application tonight, in terms of how it's been designed. particularly because the pool and the patio were specifically designed to stay landward of the current seaward extension of the rest of the structures, which I think was one of the conditions of one of the prior permits that was issued. So we did sort of take all these things into account, the contractor and the designer did, during the plan preparations, to stay more than 100 feet from wetlands, to stay behind the existing structure and yet here we still are in front of the board asking for a permit whereas a non-jurisdiction letter had just been granted by this board two years ago. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: I hear what you are saying. What Jim and I talked about when we went out there again, is if you can move one section of the pool back ten feet, the "L" part, you could leaven you don't have to move that back MR. HERMAN: You are talking about this portion that extends ten feet beyond the rest of the pool. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Yes, so the "L" part can stay where it is. MR. HERMAN: well, you lose the "L." It would have to be translated to this side and you would push this portion back. MR. ZIZZI: Can I speak? The whole vanishing edge, in order to have the vanishing edge it has to be an area to take the water or we have to bury surge tanks under the ground. And if we move it back, we lose that whole "L" shape back to the house because we need five feet addition just for the surge tank which goes into that "L." So we held it back in the principle structure to take that into consideration. In fact Gale wickham had handled this case two years ago and I think the biggest issue at that time was we had maintained 64 feet from the hardened structure that is the bulkhead. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Accordin9 to the zoning board. MR. ZIZZI: Right, the zonlng board. so that's where we stayed. So it does cause, actually, a redesign of the whole pool. we would not have the ability to have the "L" shape to the back TRUSTEE DOHERTY: what does the rest of the board feel, D 67 given TRUSTEE BERGEN: If I could interrupt for a second. This was found inconsistent under the LWRP because of the proposed swimming pool and associated structure from the top of the bluff of 17 feet. Again, he's using the term bluff. And, again, he's finding it inconsistent because of the proximity of the page 61 OCTMIN-Final pool to let's say the water. So what has been proposed here would help bring this into consistency MR. HERMAN: well, I don't think -- it doesn't sound like he's finding an inconsistency because of the proximity of the water but because of the proximity of the bluff. TRUSTEE BERGEN: The top of the bluff is 17 feet. The minimum setback is 100 feet from the bluff. MR. HERMAN: That number is actually not correct. TRUSTEE KING: It doesn't sound right to me. MR. HERMAN: It's 40. TRUSTEE BERGEN: I mean, I agree the 17 is off. I don't think there is any need to argue over it. So it looks here you have 64 from the wood bulkhead. MR. HERMAN: It's 17 feet to the proposed hay bales. TRUSTEE BERGEN: I don't see anything on your plans to address from the top of what you call a slope here. So, again. MR. HERMAN: If I was in a court proceeding offering expert testimony, I would argue that this is not a bluff and informally I would argue that it's not the type of natural feature that this board intended to bring into its jurisdiction if the structure is more than 100 feet from wetlands. I mean, the way that "bluff" is being interpreted, to me is there is nothing in the revised wetlands code that indicates what kind of projects will or won't come before you that have any sort of elevation to them. In other words, if I have a step up of six feet, is the LWRP czar going to decide that that is a bluff? I mean, is it at ten feet? In other words, at what point -- this is an elevation of 16 feet whereas the bluff restoration projects you have before you tonight are at 70 or 80 feet. so at what elevation is the town, and it's got to be the planning Board, Trustees and the Building Department, at what elevation is the town consistently going to decide something is a bluff? Because I have a feeling if D 68 we were to represent the neighbor to the north or two doors down, this would not be in front of you. Because it's almost no elevation rise at all. TRUSTEE BERGEN: If I could continue. CAC supports the application with the condition of 20-foot, non-turf buffer in the entire bank be planted with native species. I want to get that in because that had not been put in yet. Jim, I understand you have an idea? TRUSTEE KING: I thought a ten-foot buffer given that side where it's going down. MR. HERMAN: I would -- I think that would be agreeable. page 62 OCTMIN-Final TRUSTEE BERGEN: I also shared the concern of the side going down because now everything drains down right to the top of the bulkhead anyhow. so if we could revegetate that bluff native spaces and a ten-foot non-turf buffer, that would address the inconsistency issue. MR. HERMAN: I think that's agreeable. I think perhaps, I mean, if the board would be lnclined to allow us to maintain the pool in its current location as Mr. zizzi described, we would go to a IS-foot buffer to try to compensate for some of that additional extension. And I think, consistent with what this gentleman said, although we could argue the 200 foot or whatever all night, I think it's probably more important to have an additional five feet of buffer than to set a pool edge, vanishing or not, five feet closer or further when you are already talking about something that is more than 100 feet from the water. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Makes sense. TRUSTEE BERGEN: Thank you. Any other comments from anybody in the audience? (NO response.) Any comments from the board? (NO response.) IS the board then supporting the addition to the buffer from ten to IS foot and leaving the pool as per the plan? TRUSTEE DOHERTY: I'm fine with that. TRUSTEE BERGEN: Everybody else okay with that? (Trustees respond in the affirmative.) I'll make a motion to close the public hearing. Do I hear a second? TRUSTEE DICKERSON: Second. TRUSTEE BERGEN: All in favor? ALL AYES. D 69 I make a motion to approve En-consultants on behalf of Joann walker for the permit as described, with the inclusion of gutters, drywells, containing the roof runoff. MR. HERMAN: Those are already on the plan and there is the indicated drywell for the pool as well. TRUSTEE BERGEN: And just like in the plan there is a row of staked hay bales with silt retention screen and we add a IS-foot non-turf buffer with what is designated right now top of slope landward and that the slope turn into the buffer also, planted with native species. MR. HERMAN: I don't recall off the top of my head what the condition of that bluff is, but if there are areas that require supplemental plantings, I don't see why that would be a problem. It would be continue to be maintain as a buffer anyway. TRUSTEE BERGEN: Do I hear a second to that? page 63 OCTMIN-Final TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Second. TRUSTEE BERGEN: All in favor? ALL AYES. MR. HERMAN: Thank you, I appreciate the board working with us on that. TRUSTEE KING: I would like to back and reopen #11 for a comment. I missed the LWRP recommended silk screening in-place during construction. MR. HERMAN: I'm sorry, for which? TRUSTEE KING: VanCott. MR. HERMAN: There is no dredging. I don't think there is any incidental dredging proposed for this project. TRUSTEE KING: I'm just putting on the record what they recommend. They recommend the installation of a silt zone during construction to minimize damage -- MR. HERMAN: If the board wants it, they can install it. It's not ordinarily installed without dredgin~ because there should not be any, but I don't see why lt would be objectionable. It's simple enough for the contractor to install. TRUSTEE KING: (continuing) during construction of the bu 1 khead. That was the only comment. Make a motion to reclose. TRUSTEE DICKERSON: Second. TRUSTEE KING: All in favor? ALL AYES. MR. HERMAN: Thank you. o 70 RESOLUTIONS TRUSTEE KING: we have some resolution here. Number one of the Resolutions. Rescind resolution of September 20, 2006 of Catherine Mesiano, Inc., on behalf of Mary zupa to amend permit 5636 to construct a 12-foot extension to the existing return at the northwest end of the low-sill bulkhead and replace 20 cubic yards of clean fill. Located at 580 Basin Road, southold. Two is a new resolution. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Second. TRUSTEE KING: All in favor? ALL AYES. TRUSTEE KING: second resolution is Catherine Mesiano on behalf of Mary zupa requests an amendment to permit 5636 to include the ten-foot as-built return and a proposed 12-foot extension to the as-built return at the northwestern end of the low-sill bulkhead and replace 20 cubic yards of clean fill. Located: 580 Basin Road, southold. And I think we should add on to this when the extension is built they should recover the sand that spills over the seaward end of the bulkhead and also page 64 OCTMIN-Final recover that to use as backfill and that slope land of the rugosa bulkhead be re-graded to make it a more gentle slope and replant it. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: IS that approximately 20 cubic yards you'll recover? IS that -- TRUSTEE KING: I don't think it's that much. But if they recover that sand low-sill and re-grade that slope to make it more gentle, they'll probably have enough fill. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: I'm saying there is only ten cubic yards and they are asking for 20-cubic yards. we should stipulate how much they recover from that. TRUSTEE KING: It's difficult to figure. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: You know what I'm saying? TRUSTEE DICKERSON: Did it say not to exceed so many cubic or minimum or a maximum? TRUSTEE DICKERSON: Can you give a minimum or maximum amount? TRUSTEE BERGEN: we don't want to turn this into a dredging project. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: unless we TRUSTEE KING: why don't we TRUSTEE BERGEN: I think we just leave it alone. leave it alone. are better off just leaving it o 71 as it reads. I agree. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Second that. Again. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: In reality, some of it will be recovered anyway during construction, don't you think? TRUSTEE KING: No, because they are not going near the seaward side of the bulkhead. Maybe we could say if they re-grade that slope, that drops off over there, that's what caused that all to go down. If they could re-grade that slope to like a three or four to one slope and use that excess material as backfill and add anything they need to drain the, bring the level up rather than 20 cubic yards. TRUSTEE BERGEN: I like that idea better. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: So re-grade the slope to four to one or three to one? TRUSTEE KING: At least three to one slope. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: okay. TRUSTEE KING: And you use that as fill on the return. Does that makes sense to everybody? (Trustees respond in the affirmative). SECRETARY STANDISH: In addition to the 20 cubic yards or in 1 i eu of? TRUSTEE KING: I would say in lieu of. SECRETARY STANDISH: so they are not getting 20 cubic yards clean fill? TRUSTEE KING: NO. TRUSTEE DICKERSON: DO we have Second. page 65 a second? OCTMIN-Final TRUSTEE KING: All in favor? ALL AYES. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Three, rescind resolution dated May 17, 2006, of Julie Tsai, located at 310 Lake Drive, Southold. Second? TRUSTEE KING: Second. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: All in favor? (Trustee King, Trustee Doherty, Trustee Bergen, AYE. Trustee Dickerson, OPPOSED.) TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Number four, adopt revised resolution dated October 18, 2006, of Julie Tsai. The Board of Trustees hereby rescind permit #6365 and the related resolution of May 17, 2006, and hereby enact the following resolution regarding the public hearing held at its regular meeting on wednesday, May 17, 2006, regarding the above matter. WHEREAS, Robert Barratt on behalf of Julie Tsai applied to the Southold Town Trustees for a permit under the o 72 provlslons of Chapter 275 of the Southold Town code, the Wetland Ordinance of the Town of Southold, application dated October 7, 2005, and, WHEREAS, said application was referred to the Southold Town Conservation Advisory Council and to the Local waterfront Revitalization Program Coordinator for their findings and recommendations, and, WHEREAS, a public hearing was held by the Town Trustees with respect to said application on May 17, 2006, at which time all interested persons were given an opportunity to be heard, and, WHEREAS the board members have personally viewed and are familiar with the premises in question and the surrounding area, and, WHEREAS, the Board has considered all the testimony and documentation submitted concernin~ this application, and, WHEREAS, the structure complies wlth the standards set forth in chapter 275 of the Southold Town code, WHEREAS, the above referenced lot is a legal building lot previously approved by the Town of southold, and, WHEREAS, the Local Waterfront Revitalization program coordinator recommended the application be found inconsistent due to the 100-foot setback as outlined in chapter 275 of the Southold Town code, and, WHEREAS, the Board of Trustees considered the presence of other homes and a commercial restaurant within close proximity to the lot, and, WHEREAS, the original application called for a two-story, four-bedroom, single-family dwelling approximately 60'x3S' and driveway, and, WHEREAS, the Board of Trustees recognized the environmental concerns of the area and in response to Page 66 OCTMIN-Final these concerns, si~nificantly downsized the structure to a single story, 20 x45' house, required the structure to be put on piles, required that no excavation shall take place, that no re-grading be permitted, that extra fill required for construction be strictly limited to the requirements of the sanitary system and, resulted in substantial reduction to the original proposal, and, WHEREAS, all setbacks were maximlzed to include locating the sanitary system out of the Trustees jurisdiction with the exception of the septic tank, and, WHEREAS, the Board of Trustees maximized the non-disturbance area, requiring a 50-foot non-disturbance D 73 area adjacent to the wetlands, to remain natural and undisturbed, and, WHEREAS, the Conservation Advisory council recommended approval considering the area had already been compromised with construction of homes of similar or greater square footage in the immediate area, and, WHEREAS, the Board has determined that the project as proposed will not affect the health, safety and general welfare of the people of the town, NOW THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED, that the Trustees have mitigated all environmental and coastal concerns to the maximum extent practicable and based upon the imposition of Best Management Practice requirements referred to above, as set forth in greater detail in the Trustees' file on this application, the Board of Trustees deems the proposed action, as modified, to be consistent with the Local Waterfront Revitalization program pursuant to chapter 268-5 of the Southold Town code, and, BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, that the Board of Trustees approve the application of Julie Tsai to construct a 45'x20' one-story, single-family dwelling on pilings with an attached raised deck and sanitary system, with the conditions of a 50-foot non-disturbance buffer, drywells are installed to contain the roof run-off, a line of staked hay bales and silt fence are installed prior to construction and maintained during construction, they hat bales are to be left in place post construction, pervious driveway is to remain pervious, and all as depicted on the survey prepared by Joseph A. Ingegno last dated May 28, 2006. permit to construct and complete project will expire two years from the date of this permit. TRUSTEE BERGEN: Second. TRUSTEE KING: All in favor? (Trustee King, Trustee Doherty, Trustee Bergen, AYE. Trustee Dickerson, OPPOSED.) TRUSTEE BERGEN: Five, Resolution to approve Southold page 67 OCTMIN- Fi na 1 Town Trustees Dredging priority List 2006-07. TRUSTEE DICKERSON: Second. TRUSTEE BERGEN: All in favor? ALL AYES. TRUSTEE KING: I have a comment on that. Hang on a second. MR. JOHNSTON: DO you have that vote? TRUSTEE KING: Number ten, Deep Hole Creek. Can we put a o 74 little addition there "above intertidal to the west" as a possibility to put the dredge spoils? TRUSTEE BERGEN: If the DEC, my understanding is DEC is amending this so that, amending their conditions, so that if it is above intertidal it can't be any vegetation at all, also. So it is still as per DEC. TRUSTEE KING: That's my suggestion, if it could be put above the high tide mark but not in vegetation, then it could be done. TRUSTEE BERGEN: Are the other board members okay with that? TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Yes, fine. TRUSTEE DICKERSON: Sure. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: It will be whatever DEC says anyway. TRUSTEE BERGEN: okay, so I'll hand you a copy of that so you have that. TRUSTEE BERGEN: So can I have a second? TRUSTEE DICKERSON: Second. TRUSTEE BERGEN: All in favor? ALL AYES. SECRETARY STANDISH: You approved the dredging list? TRUSTEE BERGEN: I made a motion. Peggy second. unanimous approved. SECRETARY STANDISH: The way it was written except for number ten, which will be as per DEC or above intertidal to the west. That's Deep Hole Creek. 1. Jockey creek Spur, on southern shoreline of Jockey Creek. 2. cedar Beach Inlet, as per DEC permit or downdrift. 3. Little Creek, downdrift to North. 4. school House creek, as per DEC permit or downdrift to North. 5. Budds Pond (Mill creek), shur Island. 6. Richmond creek, as per DEC permit or downdrift to East. 7 corey creek, as per DEC permit or downdrift to West. 8. James creek to include newly approved extension, as per DEC or East. g. Brushes creek, as DEC or West. 10. Deep Hole creek, as per DEC or above intertidal to West. 11. wickham creek, as per DEC or in upper dune area to West. page 68 OCTMIN-Final 12. Mudd creek, as per DEC or above intertidal to West. 13. west creek, as per DEC or to East. o 75 TRUSTEE DOHERTY: Motion to close the regular meeting. TRUSTEE DICKERSON: second. TRUSTEE DOHERTY: All in favor? ALL AYES. (The time noted is 9:51 PM.) RECEIV<:Dp.-~"," /1:1:>~n1 -">'" 1 >; :J', I, L ~ {,~{lr;~w'!J", Souilould T('I';11 Clerk Page 69